Manhood in the Making
Explores the question "what does it mean to b̀e a man' om different cultures around the world?" A cross-cultural study of manhood as an achieved status.
Stats for nerds
3recommend
4mentions
3people
2022–2023years
75% recommend25% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- An interesting, critical review of Richard Reeves' book by Aaron Renn: https://ifstudies.org/blog/right-diagnosis-wrong-prescriptio...
A couple of excerpts that summarize Renn's viewpoint:
>> The directional similarity of Reeves’ recommendations to the MRA agenda shows why it won’t get much traction. The MRA vision never inspired a material number of men, and neither will Reeves. In part, this is because he wants men to become more like women, a project that will never appeal to ordinary guys. He cites David Gilmore’s very interesting book Manhood in the Making, which is an anthropological survey of how a diverse set of cultures around the world have defined manhood as a distinctive identity that builds on men’s strengths rather than seeks to minimize them. But Reeves rejects Gilmore’s insights. His agenda would be more compelling to ordinary men if he had worked with the grain of Gilmore’s findings on the common themes of manhood rather than against them.
>> The second half of his book, then, exemplifies a major problem in American public life—one where ideology prevents us from honestly addressing our biggest social issues—that is not specific to Reeves’ book. The same ideological straightjacket affects pretty much every other area of society as well, from opioids to homelessness. Which is why we have not been able to successfully address any of them. As a society, we must find a way to create the space in which the real sources of and potential solutions to serious social issues can be publicly discussed and ultimately confronted if we actually want to make progress in fixing any of them.
- Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity by David D. Gilmore goes into the pan-cultural concepts of masculinity. It's a very approachable and deep dive into what defines masculinity across cultures and times.
TLDR: It's not that men are not women, it's that they are not boys.
Manliness is a social marker and is defined by a male's peers, "honor" societies, gangs, etc.
How that is seen is via the 3 P's, which are: Provider, Protector, Procreater.
With very few and rare exceptions, all cultures have these three things as markers of a man. You can have 2 of them in spades and still be seen as a man, but you can't just have 1.
Again, I'm trying to summarize a whole book here in a comment on HN, so if you're interested in discussing and learning more, I'd buy it and read it.
- Thanks for the feedback!
The 3Ps model comes from Gilmore's 1991 book Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity. It's a dense read and very well researched. The 3Ps comes out of the studies on male honor and that culture and how they are all linked together. Very few societies do not have male honor cultures. And yes, not all males participate in their honor culture, but as a consequence they are not considered 'real men' in their culture. The culture of men in Texas very much has the 3Ps defining a 'real man'.
https://www.amazon.com/Manhood-Making-Cultural-Concepts-Masc...
As for asking OP to change, welp, yeah. I mean, she's literally asking HN what she needs to change to get a man to settle with her.
I don't see why they would be abusive at all. The Protector role is the literal opposite of that. A 'real man' protects his family and loved ones, he does not harm them. This is in part why wife-beaters and child abusers are so reviled in the culture and courts of Texas.
Hopefully the book will be a good summer read for you. Thanks again!
- Thanks!
To answer your ?s and speak to your comment:
- Short answer: Probably never. The 3Ps theory is well established in academic masculinist studies. A good overview of the 3Ps comes from Gilmore's 1991 book Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity if you want to learn more. Very briefly, all males conform to these Ps to participate in male honor. Yes, many males do not, but they are then without honor, and therefore considered not 'real' men in their culture. Honor is redefined here to encompass more than just the classical concept and is more a pan-male term, it gets a bit wonky. Man is also generally defined as 'not a boy', not 'not a woman'(sorry for all the nots here). The book does a much better job at introducing the ideas than a little HN comment could. In the end, I fail to see how any generation is going to escape ~200,000 years of human history. I could be very very wrong though!
https://www.amazon.com/Manhood-Making-Cultural-Concepts-Masc...
- It's not caveman, it's a theory of how men work in their culture and in almost all cultures we know of (the book goes into the exceptions and how they 'prove the rule' essentially). In the culture of Texas, 'real men' possess these three Ps, or at least have 2 Ps in above average amounts. HN isn't the best place to really dive into it, as most of the men here have above average Provider traits due to the income from tech jobs. It kinda blinds them to men that have to rely on the Protector and Procreator roles for their honor. I want to stress, Provider is not just income.
OP being a selector, and not a selectee, changes the equation a lot, of course. However, understanding the psychology of the men she is dating and their need of the 3Ps may help her address why her strategy is failing. Fluffing up the Protector role, or choosing men that have a lot of strengths in that role, may lead to more success.
