Being Fully Present As a Man or Woman

[Mr Vim]

I read this article over at The Art of Manliness blog, now while the article and website is predominantly geared towards men, I found this article
http://artofmanliness.com/2010/11/22/being-fully-present-as-a-man/
to have many virtues that apply to both sexes.

I would certainly enjoy hearing your thoughts below.

 

[Aristaeus]

That is a good site, I found it through the F.C.

 

[Mr Vim]

Apologies, but what does the F.C. stand for?

But it is a treasure trove of wonderful advice, none of it is uber masculine or rude; I rather think that it should be called the art of gentlemanliness blog, eh?

 

[Aristaeus]

The Fedora Chronicles.

 

[bunnyb.gal]

Gets a female thumbs up - a lot of what I read of it over a 10-minute surf was more like the art of hu-manliness. I sent the link to my other half as I live in hope...

 

[Pompidou]

Took me many years to figure out the many flaws in the path of "The Nice Guy." It often leads to a sense of entitlement.

 

[Widebrim]

Based on what I've gone through/observed in my life, I think that this point from the article rings true:

"Women want men to be the rock in a relationship. They want to know that they can unload anything on their man- anger, frustration, or sadness- without him getting uncomfortable or upset himself. Instead of reacting, women want their man to remain steadfast while empathizing with and anchoring them during their difficult time."

An argument could be made, of course, that men want to know that they can also unload anything on their women without the latter getting uncomfortable/upset, but as far as being the anchor of the relationship, I believe that it is the man who naturally fills this role, especially in marriage. Sadly, many "males" either refuse to or don't know how to carry out this responsibility, usually with disastrous effects.

 

[skyvue]

I view with great suspicion anything that states women are fill-in-the-blank, while men are fill-in-the-blank-with-something-else. Society strives to fit us in such boxes and, speaking very broadly, it might succeed, but the individual exceptions are so numerous as to render the generalizations useless.

I think a man could be happily married to one woman and end up playing a particular role in her life (and her in his), while that same man could, under slightly different circumstances, be happily partnered with an entirely different woman and find himself playing an entirely different role in her life (and her in his).

Broad rules serve little to no purpose in negotiating a relationship between two particular people.

 

[Lady Day]

I hate taking photos during the experience, too. And here I though I was the only one.

As of the rock part of a relationship, in my experience, Ive always been that, and I accepted it. I expect the man to be the leader, thats kind of difficult to do and be the rock at the same time. Most men Ive known will share when they are ready to, and if they are comfortable with you, not much prodding is needed to get them to open up.

LD

 

[rue]

Based on what I've gone through/observed in my life, I think that this point from the article rings true:

"Women want men to be the rock in a relationship. They want to know that they can unload anything on their man- anger, frustration, or sadness- without him getting uncomfortable or upset himself. Instead of reacting, women want their man to remain steadfast while empathizing with and anchoring them during their difficult time."

An argument could be made, of course, that men want to know that they can also unload anything on their women without the latter getting uncomfortable/upset, but as far as being the anchor of the relationship, I believe that it is the man who naturally fills this role, especially in marriage. Sadly, many "males" either refuse to or don't know how to carry out this responsibility, usually with disastrous effects.

This is exactly how I feel and until I met my husband I didn't know that his kind existed. I'm also the same for him when he needs it. I feel very lucky, but of course, I already knew I was

Great article, by the way.

 

[HepKitty]

Gets a female thumbs up - a lot of what I read of it over a 10-minute surf was more like the art of hu-manliness.

Agreed. It's so nice to see a website for men that doesn't focus on men demanding what they want in life without regard to what effect said demands would have on others. Since when is encouraging people to be sociopaths acceptable? Thanks for sharing this Mr Vim there is hope after all

 

[Mr Vim]

It's my pleasure, I enjoy that blog quite a lot, they always have something interesting to say. Has anyone else been more actively aware of how in the moment they are? I spent the rather short afternoon here in Juneau appreciating all the older buildings, I need to post the photos in another thread, but well, I never realized just how many buildings we had in Juneau that were built before the 1950s. Truly incredible.

 

[Pompidou]

I think the biggest challenge presented in the article is balancing society's need for a stoic man with women's need for an emotionally available man that also remains the stoic emotionless rock that keeps them both strong. Unable to be both, I cut my losses and opted for stoic. I find myself biting my cheeks quite often, because I've practiced a now natural reaction to laugh at life's unpleasantries, and sometimes, that's not cool.

 

[Fletch]

Does society need all men to be stoics? Isn't it just an expectation?

And aren't there strong women? What's their acceptable role?

I admit, I ask questions like these mostly because I'm socially near clueless.
If it worked for me, I wouldn't question it, and I'd probably be suspicious of anyone who did.

 

[Fletch]

it is a treasure trove of wonderful advice, none of it is uber masculine or rude; I rather think that it should be called the art of gentlemanliness blog, eh?

If we define manliness in the present day, Harvey Mansfield sense of socialized forcefulness, then I agree, the title is misplaced. But we have to talk the language of our time. Gentlemanliness today usually means little more than etiquette.

 

[Paisley]

Based on what I've gone through/observed in my life, I think that this point from the article rings true:

"Women want men to be the rock in a relationship. They want to know that they can unload anything on their man- anger, frustration, or sadness- without him getting uncomfortable or upset himself. Instead of reacting, women want their man to remain steadfast while empathizing with and anchoring them during their difficult time."

An argument could be made, of course, that men want to know that they can also unload anything on their women without the latter getting uncomfortable/upset, but as far as being the anchor of the relationship, I believe that it is the man who naturally fills this role, especially in marriage. Sadly, many "males" either refuse to or don't know how to carry out this responsibility, usually with disastrous effects.

IME, it depends on the woman. My friend Opal in particular is very independent--she raised two of her kids mostly by herself. According to her, she and her second husband didn't lean on each other much.

 

[gegarrenton]

It's my pleasure, I enjoy that blog quite a lot, they always have something interesting to say. Has anyone else been more actively aware of how in the moment they are? I spent the rather short afternoon here in Juneau appreciating all the older buildings, I need to post the photos in another thread, but well, I never realized just how many buildings we had in Juneau that were built before the 1950s. Truly incredible.

I agree, one of my favorite blogs. It's an interesting piece, present moment awareness is something we talk about a lot, and seems so far off in our continually plugged in society

 

[Widebrim]

Does society need all men to be stoics? Isn't it just an expectation?

And aren't there strong women? What's their acceptable role?

I admit, I ask questions like these mostly because I'm socially near clueless.
If it worked for me, I wouldn't question it, and I'd probably be suspicious of anyone who did.

It depends how we define "stoic." If it means having clear judgement under all situations (particularly negative ones), then I would say yes. Regarding strong women, of course they exist, but such predispostion shouldn't prevent their men from being the rock that the former can rely on in a relationship (and, yes, there may be times when the man needs the woman to be that rock). I realize that there are plenty who disagree with the above, particularly those who deny that there are substantial psychological/emotional differences between the genders, but that's why we afford ourselves of the opportunity to discuss such issues on this forum.

 

[Widebrim]

If we define manliness in the present day, Harvey Mansfield sense of socialized forcefulness, then I agree, the title is misplaced. But we have to talk the language of our time. Gentlemanliness today usually means little more than etiquette.

Good point on "the language of our time" definition. Regarding Mansfield (and I agree with your estimation of his interpretation), I found these quotes from the interview link you provided interesting:

Lopez: What's your one sentence definition of manliness?

Mansfield: Manliness is confidence and command in a situation of risk.

Lopez: How deeply has feminism wounded manliness? I'd hate to see manliness fall, wimp-like, victim to little old aging bra burners.

Mansfield: Feminism abolished the idea of femininity but only wounded manliness.

It claimed and still claims that women can be as manly as men, but on condition that manliness is redefined in the direction of womanly sensitivity. Manly men did not fight back because they are not in the habit of fighting women, and because we all believe in democratic equality.

Lopez: How can we raise boys to be manly? We want to, right?

Mansfield: We should want to raise boys to be manly. I don't see any other way than to introduce them to the things expected of men as a sex. And to the things to be expected of women. Boys are very aware of their sex, but our education today asks them to ignore it. This serves only to confuse them.

(Emphasis mine.)

 

[Geesie]

As a geologist, I must say the article didn't start out well

Awhile back, I was taking a tour of a cave in Missouri. As our trolley rolled through the cavern, I was surprised to see people taking pictures….of the walls of the cave. Not pictures of the cavern or some spectacular formation of stalagmites, just pictures of the wall. Rock. I found this rather bewildering and couldn’t imagine these folks looking back in a few years at these dimly lit pictures or sharing them with their unfortunate friends.