"Dude!": An answer to Dr. E

It's a busy morning.  I did want to respond to one question from "Dr.E", who this morning asked:

I have a question for you. Can you tell us what you like about men? I don't mean offering up the usual adjectives, I mean what **you** like about men and masculinity. I am very curious to hear. Thanks.

Dr. E (who is one of the moderators of a well-known MRA forum)  asked politely, which is nice.  Frequently,  Men's Rights Advocates simply slap the label "self-loathing male" on me and don't bother to ask questions.  As I've written before, the assumption that we "don't like men" (and our own maleness) is one of the four classic strategies used to attack pro-feminist males.

I don't feel the need to defend my fondness for other men.  At the same time, it is important to, whenever possible, combat the assumption of self-loathing that remains so persistent in the lives of pro-feminist males.

It's tempting to respond to the question with a variety of anecdotes of the time spent hanging out with male friends: weekly 6:00AM breakfasts with Steve, long runs and long talks on Saturday mornings with Mark and Simon and Bill and Caz, the time spent mentoring teen boys at All Saints.  A day does not go by today when I don't speak with at least one male friend, and that's a joy.

But that doesn't explain what I love about men.  It's vital to note that making a list of what I like about the men in my life needs to come with this caveat: any qualities I list are not necessarily exclusive to males; many of the things I love best about my male friends are things that many women possess.  In that sense, it's important to remember that saying "I love X about men" doesn't correlate to " I don't think women have X".

So what do I love?  Perhaps more than anything else, I love watching how hard so many of the men I know work to transform themselves.  Maybe it's just the kind of guys I surround myself with, but I see men always pushing to become better, more loving, more complete human beings.  Yes, I train with athletes who talk about improving marathon times and lowering body-fat percentages.  But I talk with these same men about how we can be better husbands, better fathers, better Christians, better friends, better stewards of all that we have been given.  One good friend of mine calls himself a "growth junkie",and I think that's as good a term as any for me and for most of the men in my life.    (Parenthetically, we are a deeply American, and deeply "Southern Californian" bunch in this regard!)

There are few greater joys than being witness to another person's transformation.  I am continually encouraged by what I see the guys in my life do.  They are sales reps and scientists, teachers and doctors, husbands and fathers.  Their hunger to grow and deepen challenges me, and I do my best to respond by pushing myself and encouraging and praising those around me.

Sometimes, my happiest times with the men in my life are the times when we say nothing at all.  My friend Mark and I often carpool into the mountains for our long runs.  I can't tell you how many times we've driven home together after a long run, our bodies thrashed and depleted; the endorphins coursing through our system making us high as could be.   One day (last fall, I think), we were coming down from Chantry Flats after a hard 18, our systems aching to be refueled.  Mark was so spent he pulled the car over, afraid he was going to pass out.  We traded places so that I could drive, but as we did so, gave each other jubilant, giddy high-fives.  "Dude!", I yelled.  "Dude", Mark replied.   It's difficult to articulate just how happy we were in our mutual incoherence, sharing this experience together.  The experience didn't need to be analyzed or discussed, just shared.  It was glorious, and I am so glad to know that he and I, and many of the other guys in my life, will share similarly laconic moments of profound joy.

Are there female friends in my life with whom I have shared similar experiences?  Of course.  But there are some days when it just feels so damned good to be out with the guys, sharing our suffering and our stories and our just-ran-for-four-hours-and haven't-showered-since yesterday morning smell!   With these guys, we don't need to complain about our wives and lovers, or go to strip clubs together, in order to bond.   We don't need to use either our attraction to or anger at women to draw us closer together, and that's something I'm frankly proud of.

Dr. E, I love being a man.  I love my brother and my father, and I love the men whom I am proud to call my friends.

Comments

[Dr E]

Hugo - Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond. Your remarks about males "self-improvement" or one might call it an urge towards a "quest" or "transformation" is exactly the sort of thing I was asking about. Do you see those as masculine? Maybe another way to say it might be to say that the average boy would be naturally attracted to that sort of behavior moreso than the average girl. Do you see this questing as more a male trait than female?

I would be curious to hear of the other positive male traits that you see as "typically masculine." You hinted a bit at males intimacy through silence and seemed to be referencing a masculine intuitiveness that develops in that space. Would you consider those masculine qualities also? How about others?

Thanks.

E

[sophonisba]

Oh, "questing," that's nice. Good thing you gave it a spiffy masculine name, or the uninitiated might suppose it had something to do with the eternal quest - er, search, sorry - for self-improvement the women's magazines are always on about. But I'm sure it's not the same thing at all.

Likewise, masculine intuition doesn't have much of a feminine equivalent. What would you even call it? Feminine - hmmm. What would the word be?

To be clear, Dr. E, I'm not trying to tell you or any man what is or isn't typical of men. As a woman, it's not really my area of expertise. But it is pretty funny that the two things you've seized on from this post - intuition and self-improvement - are as stereotypically feminine as can be.

Of course, this does not suggest to me that they are not, therefore, typically masculine as well, and I certainly hope it won't suggest that to you either.

[sophonisba]

And the whole point of the post was that men don't need to be defined against women to be masculine, that they're interesting and likeable and whole all by themselves. And your response is to say - but what about girls? Why don't we talk about how different we are from the girls? Can't talk about ourselves without comparing ourselves to the girls!

And yet Hugo managed to do that with ease.

You'd think he was the men's rights activist here.

[Hugo]

Point taken, sophonisba.

Dr. E, good questions. No time to respond now, but I will get to them soon.

[The Gonzman]

What you and Hugo might call self improvement, I call good old fashioned competition. Competition against self, others, environment.

I do it in full contact medieval combat with rattan wasters. It's primal, mano-y-mano, chest thumping, testosterone overloaded struggle, channeled in a non-destructive way, as men are very good at doing. Yes, I will be the first to talk some trash, and warn my brothers in arms "Bring it on - you can walk on over, but you'll limp back!" And I love a sport where me, a forty-mumble year old man, can go out and run the twenty-somethings into the ground, and I can whallop my best bud with a stick and have him get up and say, Dude ... that was COOL!"

[Dr E]

sophonisba - Perhaps you might want to offer your ideas about positive natural attributes of men? What is it that you notice?

[Winter Woods]

This is going to sound simplistic but, as a feminist with some close heterosexual pro-feminist male friends, I would say the one thing they have in common is that they really like women. They don't pretend to like women to get sex, they just genuinely like and respect them and enjoy being in their company. They don't seem to have a problem with being "female identified" if you like. If you love women, in my view you should desire their freedom, autonomy and equality with men and so their pro-feminism makes sense to me - in the context of their lives. My own male friends do have firm friendships with other men, but overall they seem to prefer the company of women and have more female friends. However, they have all suffered in their lives, through bullying and derision from peers, primarily because their masculinity was not perceived to come up to standard, especially in childhood. They are all gentle, non-aggressive men. Homophobic abuse always seems to form a part of this bullying. I sometimes wonder whether such early childhood bullying may have actually worked to turn them away from men and towards female friendships.

[Winter Woods]

Sorry I can't really engage with the MRA issue because I don't know much about it. I will carch up! It's not such a big thing in the UK where I am, although we do have a very active "Fathers for Justice" campaign and some men's rights groups.

[NYMOM]

"I talk with these same men about how we can be better husbands, better fathers, better Christians, better friends, better stewards of all that we have been given. One good friend of mine calls himself a "growth junkie",and I think that's as good a term as any for me and for most of the men in my life."

NYMOM said:

Amen brother.

Amen.

[TestSubjectXP]

Was it a joy witnessing my recent transformation? :-D

[sophonisba]

Perhaps you might want to offer your ideas about positive natural attributes of men? What is it that you notice?

That's the thing, though. When I look at my male friends and my boyfriend and my male relatives, I notice all sorts of wonderful things, but I don't see any common personality traits that relate to their masculinity. I do notice some commonality between them, because I have a consistent and particular taste in people, but they have those things in common with the women I like, too. Since I've never had to construct a self-image as a man, I've never had to worry about figuring out what is and isn't manly, and consequently I haven't spent a lot of time constructing a definition of it.

And because of that, I'm not going to criticize any man's attempt at such a definition. It's not about me. Except - when the definition of manhood or of masculinity suddenly attempts to define me as well, by incorporating some statement about what women are like or not like. Then, I am qualified to speak, because it has become about me.

I am not claiming - and I hope this was clear - that masculinity does not exist. I absolutely respect your right to define yourself. What I do think is that when men define masculinity in isolation, when men are considered as whole human beings and not in relation to women, their list of masculine traits comes out looking very much like a list of feminine traits. When men are not trying to impress women, or attract their attention, or distance themselves from women, or pay attention to women in any way, they act very much like women do, and they praise each other for the same virtues women do. I don't see that that's anything to worry about or object to; I'm not possessive about the womanly virtues. They're yours as much as they are mine, if you want them. Applying a new name to them, so that they don't sound womanly anymore, is a little silly - that's all the objection I have, and it's a very small one, really.

[BritGirlSF]

I agree with sophonisba. I can think of plenty of positive traits that the men in my life have (kindness, compassion, intelligence, a sense of adventure, an interest in learning, courage, a good sense of humor) but all these traits can be found in the women I like too. My definition of what constitutes a person I want to be around is pretty much the same for men as for women, and I honestly can't imagine living any other way. To me all of these are positive HUMAN traits and can be found just as readily in either gender. I am also equally likely to avoid and/or reject those who lack these traits regardless of their gender. I'm not at all sure why people insist on labelling one set of traits as "masculine" and another as "feminine".

[Pete Jensen]

And the whole point of the post was that men don't need to be defined against women to be masculine, that they're interesting and likeable and whole all by themselves. And your response is to say - but what about girls? Why don't we talk about how different we are from the girls? Can't talk about ourselves without comparing ourselves to the girls!

And this only applies if you subscribe to the increasingly discredited canard that "male" and "female" are fungible except in a few very specific areas of reproductive biology. There will be five thousand people on the field of battle at Pennsic this year. 95% of them - or more - will be men. This is no coincidence. Sexual dimorphism, both physical and psychological, is an empiric fact, observable and discernable to the layman.

That some women may possess physical male traits, such as thick and bristly facial hair, makes them no less male. That some may possess psychological male traits, or express analagous traits in a male fashion, makes them no less male. The converse is also true.

Hugo frequently declares that "men must change" and it clearly implies to me that it is his position that female traits - or methods of expressing them - are better. Doctor Evil inquires if there are any "male traits" that Hugo finds to have value. Doc E didn't ask if Hugo found them to be better, better for men, or any of a half dozen other permutations; the bar is set remarkably low, namely, what things that most people would regard as male characteristics does Hugo like?

Whether women, or some women, possess them in whole, in part, or express them differently or similarly is a quibble, and a hijack.

[mythago]

Whether women, or some women, possess them in whole, in part, or express them differently or similarly is a quibble, and a hijack.

Actually, it's a big hole in the dimorphism theory.

Being of a particular gender creates a certain level of shared experience and commonality. I don't see that it's necessary to assign human traits like handing out candy--boys are brave, girls are nurturing, whatever.

[NYMOM]

"Was it a joy witnessing my recent transformation? :-D"

NYMOM said: Not particularly.

"Perhaps you might want to offer your ideas about positive natural attributes of men? What is it that you notice?"

NYMOM said: Well I have 5 brothers, so I think I can speak here.

One trait men have more of then women is willingness to take extraordinary risks for what I consider little gain. I know that many say BOTH women as well as men CAN be fearless in this manner, but generally I find that men are more likely to be. Women are more likely to look at the risk and say, well it's not worth it and walk away to get help from someone else.

It makes some sense as men are still generally larger, stronger and the more aggressive in every species, including our own. AND have generally been the ones who have been forced into this position, so probably men who were NOT willing to take risks as society demanded never married or were allowed to have children.

Thus these risk-taking traits were probably passed along to their sons. I say only sons as girls who were too aggressive in our past were probably either killed or never allowed to marry and have children.

Traits of shyness now are even thought to be genetic; so aggressive personality willing to take risks is probably genetic as well.

It leads, on the one hand, to more men probably drinking, having casual sex and carjacking; then on the other probably more willing to leap off a bridge and rescue a drowning stranger.

Actually I was on a jury of a police officer who received a commendation from the ASPCA for jumping into the water and rescuing a drowning dog. I admired it so much in him that I truly held out for an extraordinary amount of evidence to prove his guilt and eventually everyone else gave up.

Of course I admired his courage in jumping into the river, but would I have done that. Heck no. I had 2 little girls depending upon me. It turns out he had a 3 year old son and did it w/o even thinking. It was February, freezing water so he got very sick and winded up in the hospital and bed rest for three weeks.

So that one trait in men I think is different, sort of reckless courage which can lead to both very very bad or very very good.

So depending upon the luck of the draw, today's carjacker could be tomorrow hero.

[sophonisba]

Doc E didn't ask if Hugo found them to be better, better for men, or any of a half dozen other permutations; the bar is set remarkably low, namely, what things that most people would regard as male characteristics does Hugo like?

I'm afraid that's not quite accurate. The question was (and you could have quoted this as easily as I can,) Can you tell us what you like about men? I don't mean offering up the usual adjectives, I mean what **you** like about men and masculinity.

The question was not, how are men different from women? The question was not, What makes a man? The very personal question was, What do **you** like about men? "What most people would regard as male characteristics" was not in it. Indeed, it was premptively dismissed, as the questioner requested that he not be offered up a list of "the usual adjectives.

Now, if you happen to number those "thick and bristly beards" among the things you like about men and masculinity, or among the things that first occur to you in connection with masculinity, that's all very well. I wouldn't dream of running them down. Most people, though, when asked to list things they like about others, mention more substantial things, things related to character and personality. Since you are familiar with the concept of "male psychological traits" and male ways of expressing the same, perhaps you would like to share with us what some of them might be. Just in the interest of not hijacking the thread with irrelevance and vagueness, you know.

[NYMOM]

"Doc E didn't ask if Hugo found them to be better, better for men, or any of a half dozen other permutations; the bar is set remarkably low, namely, what things that most people would regard as male characteristics does Hugo like?

NYMOM said: Well I think they are reaching, searching, whatever to find something GOOD in men that they can BOTH agree upon is good and they BOTH like: Dr. Evil and Hugo.

It's probably a guy thing.

Let's not analyze it to death.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

That some women may possess physical male traits, such as thick and bristly facial hair, makes them no less male. That some may possess psychological male traits, or express analagous traits in a male fashion, makes them no less male.

Actually, thick and bristly facial hair is one of the things I like about men; a nice chest and biceps work as well. Oh, and I love a good male singing voice; music just wouldn't be the same if we were left with only sopranos and altos (and the occasional female tenor). Though I like good female singing voices as well. I like the sound of a man laughing, especially my husband's laughter. And hands; the right pair of hands is always nice to look at.

Also it's fun to watch men playing basketball or soccer.

Psychological traits do vary on average with sex, but they tend to overlap a lot more than thick and bristly facial hair, so I'd be harder pressed to say which of the ones I like are male and which female. Besides, I think the psychological differences that do exist, on average, between men and women aren't all that well described by lists of traits; they're more complex and situational. Take "aggressive." Men and women differ a whole lot on this trait, on average, by some operational definitions of "aggressive" and in some kinds of situations. They're nearly identical, by other definitions of "aggressive" and in other situations (for example, there really wasn't much difference between the sexes in the matter of administering electrical shocks in the Milgram experiment).

So, I think there actually are psychological things I appreciate differently in my male and female friends (on average); they're just not that easy to pin down, and if I try, I wind up with a lot of exceptions to whatever rule I give.

[Stentor]

men are still generally larger, stronger and the more aggressive in every species
That's mostly true for mammals and birds. But try telling some bees that males are stronger.

[NYMOM]

"So, I think there actually are psychological things I appreciate differently in my male and female friends (on average); they're just not that easy to pin down, and if I try, I wind up with a lot of exceptions to whatever rule I give.

men are still generally larger, stronger and the more aggressive in every species
That's mostly true for mammals and birds. But try telling some bees that males are stronger."

NYMOM said: AND we must measure these things by where the vast majority of us fit on the bellshaped curve. NOT always running to the outer limits of it all the time and saying, well this doesn't apply because there's a bee or a Disney clown fish somewhere that is an exception to the rule.

Otherwise we will never be able to say anything or know anything about any issue.

The exceptions to the rules are just that rare exceptions and should NOT be used to stop us from defining things that are applicable to the vast majority of us who reside in the middle of the curve...

[The Gonzman]

The quibble remains. The very nature of the question implies within it some measure of exclusivity, it was not "What do you like in people in general?" but exclusive in "What do you like about MEN?" - in specific, with the clearly implied and unspoken "As opposed to those things you like in women."

Yes, I can select a man and a woman and in a case by case basis, the Venn Diagram of their traits and tendancies may overlap, sometimes to a high degree. As this is applied to a larger and larger sampling, though, that overlap will become considerably smaller when considered by sex.

Denying that such traits and tendancies exist, though contrary to empiric scientific fact, is where I see your position, and if Hugo agrees, he should say so. Emphasizing that Hugo likes men better when they act more like women (Which is how I read between the lines from his writings) is valid, but it should be said in so many words if that is so - when it is said "In so Many Words" I will tend to change my reading of his attitudes towards men, though I reserve the right use it to debate him when it comes to consistancy in such matters.

If it is not so, Dr. Schwyzer has an opportunity here to clarify where he stands vis-a-vis this issue.

[Mr. Bad]

Well, I hope you all will forgive me if I return from exile. I promise to behave as long as I'm not attacked.

I think a couple of folks have hit on the crux of the issue. First, Lynn identifies the basic biological components - especially re. how our brains work - which are undeniable. Borrowing from a colleague. From Lynn (not Gaziz-Sax):

"Up to end of the 19th century it was widely believed that men are, at least on average, more intelligent than women. In the 20th century this view was rejected and it became almost universally asserted by major authorities, including Terman, Spearman, Cattell, Eysenck, Brody, Jensen and Mackintosh, that there is no difference. The wheel came full circle when I proposed that the historical view was right (Lynn, 1994). Men have larger brains than women by about 10 per cent and larger brains confer greater brain power, so men must necessarily be on average more intelligent than women. I showed that this is so on any reasonable definition of intelligence. If it is defined as the IQ on the Wechsler tests, men have obtained higher average means than women on a number of standardisation samples. Men also have higher average IQs if intelligence is defined as reasoning ability or as the sum of verbal, reasoning and spatial abilities (Lynn, 1994). This conclusion was disputed by Mackintosh (1996), who argued that non-verbal reasoning measured by the Progressive Matrices is the best measure of intelligence and that there is no sex difference on this test. To examine this objection I carried out (with the assistance of Paul Irwing) a meta-analysis of studies of sex differences on the Progressive Matrices. We found that among adults the average IQ of men exceeds that of women by approximately five IQ points (Lynn & Irwing, 2005). There is no difference among children up to the age of 15."

References:

Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference. London: Penguin/Perseus.

Colom, R. & Lynn, R. (2004). Testing the developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence on 1218 year olds. Personality and Individual Differences, 36 7582.

Furnham, A. (2001). Self-estimates of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 13811405.

Lynn, R. (1994). Sex differences in intelligence and brain size. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 363364.

Lynn, R. & Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on the Progressive Matrices: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 32, 481498.

Mackintosh, N.J. (1996). Sex differences and IQ. Journal of Biosocial Science, 28, 559571.

Nyborg, H. (2003). Sex differences in g. In H. Nyborg (Ed.) The scientific study of general intelligence. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Now, I'm not ready to get into an argument about who is more "intelligent" (and I suspect that Hugo wouldn't appreciate this either), but I think that the above missive demonstrates the concrete basic biological potential (vs. "socially constructed") for differences between men and women vis-a-vis behavior.

But for me, Gonzo/Pete cuts to the heart of the matter when he points out that Hugo seems to be essentially saying that he likes those qualities in men that are more commonly associated with femininity, or at least those that he sees as feminine (and yes, this is stereotyping, but there are good reasons for stereotypes).

So I join Pete/Gonz and Dr. Evile in asking Hugo: What stereotypically masculine traits (by ordinary, non-femnist, non-women's studies standards) do you like and admire in men?

[Mr. Badboy]

Well, I hope you all will forgive me if I return from exile. I promise to behave as long as I'm not attacked.

I think a couple of folks have hit on the crux of the issue. First, Lynn identifies the basic biological components - especially re. how our brains work - which are undeniable. Borrowing from a colleague. From Lynn (not Gaziz-Sax):

"Up to end of the 19th century it was widely believed that men are, at least on average, more intelligent than women. In the 20th century this view was rejected and it became almost universally asserted by major authorities, including Terman, Spearman, Cattell, Eysenck, Brody, Jensen and Mackintosh, that there is no difference. The wheel came full circle when I proposed that the historical view was right (Lynn, 1994). Men have larger brains than women by about 10 per cent and larger brains confer greater brain power, so men must necessarily be on average more intelligent than women. I showed that this is so on any reasonable definition of intelligence. If it is defined as the IQ on the Wechsler tests, men have obtained higher average means than women on a number of standardisation samples. Men also have higher average IQs if intelligence is defined as reasoning ability or as the sum of verbal, reasoning and spatial abilities (Lynn, 1994). This conclusion was disputed by Mackintosh (1996), who argued that non-verbal reasoning measured by the Progressive Matrices is the best measure of intelligence and that there is no sex difference on this test. To examine this objection I carried out (with the assistance of Paul Irwing) a meta-analysis of studies of sex differences on the Progressive Matrices. We found that among adults the average IQ of men exceeds that of women by approximately five IQ points (Lynn & Irwing, 2005). There is no difference among children up to the age of 15."

References:

Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference. London: Penguin/Perseus.

Colom, R. & Lynn, R. (2004). Testing the developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence on 1218 year olds. Personality and Individual Differences, 36 7582.

Furnham, A. (2001). Self-estimates of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 13811405.

Lynn, R. (1994). Sex differences in intelligence and brain size. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 363364.

Lynn, R. & Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on the Progressive Matrices: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 32, 481498.

Mackintosh, N.J. (1996). Sex differences and IQ. Journal of Biosocial Science, 28, 559571.

Nyborg, H. (2003). Sex differences in g. In H. Nyborg (Ed.) The scientific study of general intelligence. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Now, I'm not ready to get into an argument about who is more "intelligent" (and I suspect that Hugo wouldn't appreciate this either), but I think that the above missive demonstrates the concrete basic biological potential (vs. "socially constructed") for differences between men and women vis-a-vis behavior.

But for me, Gonzo/Pete cuts to the heart of the matter when he points out that Hugo seems to be essentially saying that he likes those qualities in men that are more commonly associated with femininity, or at least those that he sees as feminine (and yes, this is stereotyping, but there are good reasons for stereotypes).

So I join Pete/Gonz and Dr. Evile in asking Hugo: What stereotypically masculine traits (by ordinary, non-femnist, non-women's studies standards) do you like and admire in men?

[Mr. Bad]

Most sorry for the multiple post. My bad.

[Amba]

Is the Lynn referenced above the same Richard Lynn who is also a proponent of eugenics and the theory that intelligence is also unequally distributed among the different races? If so, I've seen criticisms of his work based on methodological grounds, not based on supposed political correctness.