Re: Being a manJan 29th, 2008
I definately agree that we should first define people by what they possess, not by what they lack.
Where I see a problem is when a lack of 'manliness' is seen as a problem in a man, but a non-issue with a woman. A man is expected to be 'manly', but a woman isn't. Yet, most people seem to agree that the qualities described by the word 'manliness' are universal and transcend gender...
If ''manliness'' is a desirable quality for all human beings, why use a word that refers to the male sex to describe it?
I wouldn't see it as sexist if there was a positive 'womanliness' that both men and women can have but there doesn't seem to be any...
Perhaps it's just a step in the evolution from manly to humanly as our species takes on a wider spectrum of roles in productivity. We're adapters and to find a solution to fit a need like becoming nurturers, for example, is simply the process at work.
The exact same thing can be seen within the feminine gender of our species, in taking on the traditional male aspects that make for a successful, for example, predator. A quality that assists in turning desires into instincts that are beneficial in competition.
So I think we can see it in both genders if we care to look objectively, and though we rely on the traditional language to describe the changes in our world, it's apparent that new words are added to that lexicon while others drop off due to lack of use or becoming less descriptive than a new word or another word.
Manliness is a state of transition within the evolution of our species?