Men are egocentric, power hungry and seek to be dominant.
Any male who does not exhibit these behaviours in some form or manner is not male, I do not speak in the biological sense, rather from a framework which see’s gender and it’s social expectations and sexual anatomy as separate. To be those qualities is to be a man – and this is from an evolutionary stand point.
I kinda have to disagree with the first statement. I seriously doubt all men or even the majority of men are egocentric, power hungry and seek to be dominant. I could be wrong of course, but i still doubt the majority are like that.
I am one of those that does not exhibit such atributes. Maybe i'm not really male. To be honest my whole life i have never been atracted to most of the things that people would consider "manly", or exhibited any definitively "manly" features. (Oh, except for facial hair i guess. Couldn't really help that. ) )
Well done, quite accurate for the most part. Though I'd say I'm a bit of an exception, I'm nice to anyone I respect and often insulting to those I don't.(that's how it should work in my opinion) The thing is, it doesn't matter whether it's a man or a woman, it's about respect either way. There are of course things I would say to any of my guy friends, but not the girls. These things are usually insults...but not ones meant to be insulting...make sense? It's just that for some reason women always thinking I'm being completely serious with everything I say, whereas guys don't, and they often don't care anyway, so there are less problems all around with guys...ramblerambleramblerambleramble...
Well, being egocentric implies being overly focused on one's self. That's not necessarily true of a person confident in his place in the world.
Being power hungry implies being overly desiring of power. The person you describe in two is more seeking excellence than seeking power, and isn't necessarily overly desiring of it.
Dominant implies the person is looking for submission from others. A guy can be looking to be in control of himself and his place in the world through successful competition or by proving is value to others, not necessarily by enforcing a hierarchy on them.
When I say egocentric I refer to it in a Piagetian sense for adults, the idea that the person, (man or woman although more so for men) will base their choice and actions will a conscious or unconscious instrumental purpose. That is everything they do, will in some way benefit them at the very least in the long run. What you're referring to is a person being self-centered.
Perhaps power hungry is an incorrect term and can be misinterpreted, but the idea behind it cannot be missed. A person who seeks excellence is seeking power. A person who accentuates upon their skills, builds their character or in some way makes themselves better do so in order to capitalize upon those traits for a purpose. Otherwise why would we learn to get better at something if are not going to apply it or use it our advantage? Even things such as being kind, learning to love or be have a caring manner has a purpose such as pro-social behavior or raising a child.
When I say dominant, I mean control. Every person man or woman, once again though more so with men seek control. This is supported by research where elderly people who felt they had less control or felt they had control taken away from them were more prone for their bodies to actually fail resulting in their death. You say competition, but isn't to win a form of dominating?[/quote]
Yeah, but the terms you used are the terms we use for "an unemotional asshole of a guy." Why wouldn't one's "thoughts immediately jump to to a terrible gender stereotype" when the words you chose are the ones associated with that stereotype?
This kind of strikes me like Ayn Rand using the term 'selfishness' for the idea of pursuing your own values and never 'sacrificing' yourself: you need to at least do like her if you're going to shake people up with an unconventional use of a word, and explain what you mean and why it makes sense.
Reading back I actually never used any terminology that would imply a stereotype other than the words masculine, man and maybe "bad boy". If people had that impression it was their own mindset that created those images, I did not infer any particular characterization. But if you feel that I'm wrong feel free to point it out, I never like to be certain, certainty narrows the a person's view.
And who the hell are you? Why should I take your claims as true? Are you a relationship expert with a background in psychology and years of experience?
Because if you're not then you're just a voice on the internet who thinks they know everything, which I utterly despise. If you're going to write an article that deals with the very complex psyche of men and women as well as relationship advice, you need to back it up with actual proof and evidence that your claims are true.
Fair enough, and I appreciate you're skepticism. The sparks of conflicting views ignite the flames of enlightment after all. I did not reference any sources because not everyone know how to read APA style referencing, that and I honestly forgot where I learn my information, allow me to fix this now.
Longitudinal studies, cross sectional studies, experimental studies, sociologists and psychologists with a focus on subtle and implicit attitudes have found that a fair proportion of males within the western population have subtle sexisms in regards to women. Men were found to more likely value a masculine opinion more, this was found in the way that males were more inclined to follow the advice of not only male friends, but also even in women who had a tomboyish personality.
This was also true with their choice in medicinal help. Unless it was for gynecology, child care, or developmental psychology etc. (things along those lines), male patients would more readily take the advice of a male doctor whereas with female doctors it was found that males (and females strangely, more so with males) were more likely to seek a second opinion before proceeding.
In terms of choice for leaders both in the political world, when a male and female candidate for a leadership position, both with similar personalities, similar experience, and similar work ethics, when asked to evaluate both candidates, they considered the male to be "hard working and demonstrating leadership qualities" whereas a female was more likely to be labeled as "ruthlessly ambitious".
In a similar situation when asked to describe a male and female, males (and a fair amount of females) were more likely to describe characteristics and personality of a male then physical qualities, whereas with females the opposite was true.
So all in all, yes I do have a lot of academic literature to support my argument. I'm not saying that to be rude or pretentious, I just did not want to people to think I speak from ignorance.
Otherwise people will not take you seriously and the ones that do gulp up your post as fact need to become more adept in the area of critical thinking. I also find your post is very biased in regards to how you worded this--->
"Women I'm sure most of you have encountered this. The guy you know, he is popular among his friends, he is masculine, probably has a bit of a bad boy streak to him and he rarely seems like the sensitive type. But when he is around you or a woman, he is quite the teddy bear. He is open and honest and bares his soul to you. How endearing...
Allow me to shed some light on these types. They are chauvinistic and do not think very much of you, worse off they probably are not aware of it. The god honest truth, and whether a fellow male out there will admittedly stand by me or not - it's true."
The sarcasm and hostile vocabulary you used makes it seem like you may have had a conflict with one of these types. If this is true, please take out your emotions somewhere else.
I'll be honest I come across these types a lot while working my research thesis (oh I forgot to mention, yes I am a psychologist I work as research assistant based in Sydney, Australia). And that's probably why I used that tone, I'll admit it I have a grudge against them. But that doesn't change my observation. In fact the reason I have a focus on gender construction is for this very reason. So I apologize if it seems biased, but my purpose was to create a wider discussion, and the more sure a person sounds the more likely they'll hit the skeptic nerve in readers.
I think this point has been more then proven by the responses that have followed from so many other men (power hungry)fighting tooth and nail to prove otherwise.(egocentric) Doing everything to show value and strength in their opinions all the while (Dominant) trying to prove themselves right.
... What? So you're power-hungry, egocentric and dominant for participating in a debate?
Then that makes a clear majority of the human race wielders of those attributes, and it also makes the remaining minority very dull, indecisive and apathetic. Which is worse?
Men are egocentric, power hungry and seek to be dominant.
Any male who does not exhibit these behaviours in some form or manner is not male, I do not speak in the biological sense, rather from a framework which see’s gender and it’s social expectations and sexual anatomy as separate. To be those qualities is to be a man – and this is from an evolutionary stand point.
I kinda have to disagree with the first statement. I seriously doubt all men or even the majority of men are egocentric, power hungry and seek to be dominant. I could be wrong of course, but i still doubt the majority are like that.
I am one of those that does not exhibit such atributes. Maybe i'm not really male. To be honest my whole life i have never been atracted to most of the things that people would consider "manly", or exhibited any definitively "manly" features. (Oh, except for facial hair i guess. Couldn't really help that. ) )
Sorry this is going to come off as lazy, but here is something I posted to another reader in order to weave out any confusion.
When I say egocentric I refer to it in a Piagetian sense for adults, the idea that the person, (man or woman although more so for men) will base their choice and actions will a conscious or unconscious instrumental purpose. That is everything they do, will in some way benefit them at the very least in the long run. What you're referring to is a person being self-centered.
Perhaps power hungry is an incorrect term and can be misinterpreted, but the idea behind it cannot be missed. A person who seeks excellence is seeking power. A person who accentuates upon their skills, builds their character or in some way makes themselves better do so in order to capitalize upon those traits for a purpose. Otherwise why would we learn to get better at something if are not going to apply it or use it our advantage? Even things such as being kind, learning to love or be have a caring manner has a purpose such as pro-social behavior or raising a child.
When I say dominant, I mean control. Every person man or woman, once again though more so with men seek control. This is supported by research where elderly people who felt they had less control or felt they had control taken away from them were more prone for their bodies to actually fail resulting in their death. You say competition, but isn't to win a form of dominating?
Hope that clears out any confusion.
Also just because you're not attracted to sports, fast cars, big explosions to be consider "male". If that is the criteria to be considered male than the world would be a bleak homogenized paste of testosterone induced caveman playing Gears of War all day.
Least you can grow hair, what I wouldn't do for a beard that didn't look some one glued some ass hair to my chin.
I'm not endorsing a change of personality. Far from it.
You can be a nice guy, women find kindness and consideration attractive. But what they NEED is a man. And a man is confident, assertive and a able to assume responsibility for himself and if need be added responsibility for her when she needs it. Not saying that women are helpless, I know a few girls that would kick my ass for saying that, no I mean a woman likes a man they can depend on even if they don't need it.
Nicely written but did you really need to justify male emotional behaviors towards certain genders and situations?
I got an account so I could just reply to this, by the way do you believe that you are like this. Emotionally even though you could explain, justify and give example for your points I really think its more complex than that. By the way (again) I am a guy, and all the guys I hang out with don't care if I act like a wuss because they know that I have an insane streak of domination(when I want to).
Firstly welcome to the escapist! Hope this is one of many threads you respond to, sorry for not responding earlier.
Secondly sorry mods, I'm double posting like crazy. I won't blame you if you feel the need to stop me from doing it.
If you wish for me to back up my points, I wrote a response to another poster that I feel could also apply to my response you. Here is some academic literature of which I based my points off, but did not cite them.
Longitudinal studies, cross sectional studies, experimental studies, sociologists and psychologists with a focus on subtle and implicit attitudes have found that a fair proportion of males within the western population have subtle sexisms in regards to women. Men were found to more likely value a masculine opinion more, this was found in the way that males were more inclined to follow the advice of not only male friends, but also even in women who had a tomboyish personality.
This was also true with their choice in medicinal help. Unless it was for gynecology, child care, or developmental psychology etc. (things along those lines), male patients would more readily take the advice of a male doctor whereas with female doctors it was found that males (and females strangely, more so with males) were more likely to seek a second opinion before proceeding.
In terms of choice for leaders both in the political world, when a male and female candidate for a leadership position, both with similar personalities, similar experience, and similar work ethics, when asked to evaluate both candidates, they considered the male to be "hard working and demonstrating leadership qualities" whereas a female was more likely to be labeled as "ruthlessly ambitious".
In a similar situation when asked to describe a male and female, males (and a fair amount of females) were more likely to describe characteristics and personality of a male then physical qualities, whereas with females the opposite was true.
Also this sounds really apathetic, but I do not really hold strong beliefs to any particular view or cause, I just type what I see not what I feel. You may disagree because of my tone and vocabulary in the post, but I use a voice to communicate not to express.
EDIT:
Regarding the Nice Guy phenomenon, embittered self-declared Nice Guys generally fail to attract women because they are not actually nice at all. [http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/12/explainer-what-is-nice-guy.html]
It would appear that blogger you linked as come to the unconfortable realisation that he, as he once thought, is not really a "nice guy" at all,however rather than deciding he is simply not a nice guy, he makes the common error of thinking that all the other nice guys are just like him, when clearly they are not.
I think it's worth a closer read, as he does make a distinction, pretty clearly I think, between genuinely nice guys and Nice Guys(tm). The person you are describing is a genuinely nice guy who may be a saddened and a little baffled at his continuing single status. The type of guy being shredded in the blog entry is the guy who turns downright mean upon rejection because he feels cheated by the fact that his dogging women around is not rewarded with the sex to which he feels he is entitled. It is really an elaborate and extended version of the idea that if a guy buys a woman an expensive dinner and night on the town, she owes him sex.
To a genuinely nice guy who remains persistantly single, I would suggest that he take at look at his life and see whether he is really taking responsibility for his own happiness and well-being. I think people who think they need to have a relationship, be they male or female, are very bad candidates for an actual relationship. Cheeze_Pavilion's advice is definitely worth considering.
As a pro-tip, on the practical side, if you live in a hole, which is to say, an apartment that is bare except for an unmade bed and a heap of laundry, one in which all the seating is arranged squarely facing an entertainment system dominated by your large TV and gaming console(s), you have created a very unwelcoming environment in which the majority of women will not want to stay for an evening, much less overnight. It demonstrates that your life is really arranged for your own solitary comfort and no woman with any independence or common sense wants the task of prying you out of it.
Now, if you are an Avykins, this is just fine. He really doesn't want a woman in his space or in his life, which is fine because he is very up front about it. If you are not an Avykins, however, arrange the seating so people face each other, hang a few nice framed posters on the wall, and for god's sake clean the bathroom. I have gone to visit guys, taken one look at the place I might have to wake up and shower in, and changed my mind about the possibility of a sleep-over.
In all fairness, the hole I have just described is the hole in which I live, because (surprise!) I'm actually quite like Avykins in my aversion to having people in my private space. In fairness to myself, this is due to neurochemical issues rather than social ineptitude. I don't like people watching me go helplessly batshit and they don't much enjoy it either.
You're making an awful lot of generalisations and great leaps of logic there.
I behave in near enough the same way around both my male groups and female groups of friends (as I'm not currently dating anybody), in fact I'm probably more open and emotional around my male friends because I feel like I don't have to put on as much of a show around them as I do my female friends, where I make a greater concious effort to be more sarcastic, funny and generally confident.
I don't see being a bit emotional in front of my male friends as weakness at all. Maybe you just don't have very good friends but when the time calls for it everybody in my group of mates has had sensitive problems and everybody is always there to talk to them about it and help them through it. We're not a bunch of bro-fisting, nerd punching arrogant jocks you know.
I only value the opinions of those people I truly like regardless of gender.
I pretty much think the total opposite of all of what you just said except for the part about dating.
I agree, I'm a nice guy, but not a doormat. I'm always good humored and soft spoken, but if someone tries to take advantage of that, I will not stand for it. I'm very accommodating, giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I must say I whole heartedly disagree with your statement that all men are egocentric. When I open up to someone, it usually is a girl mainly because I respect their opinion over another guy's. I do share my feelings with guys too, people I trust, men and women alike.
Maybe you're right, maybe I am the exception to the rule, but I was very popular in high school, I got in one fight which was not a big one, I had friends and good grades and a wonderful girlfriend.
I knew jocks and nerds alike, and I honestly saw your trend in the minority of my school. A small percentage of the guys I knew were like this. And they were not popular or chick magnets. One or two, yes, but definitely not most of them.
I will give you credit for putting your opinion out there and making a point of it. You supported it and gave your reasons for thinking this is true, but through my own experiences, it is not.
Yeah well. Maybe it is just me but I want to spend as little time as possible with the girl I am screwing. People think that sex ruins friendships. That is incorrect. What really screws up the friendships is being around that person 24/7.
Again, surprise! I agree with you--in limited but not uncommon cases. I know people who really are 100% together. The couple I know who really are in a 24/7 kind of relationship are actually of the opinion that there is a sort of Kinsey scale for monogamy promiscuity, that some people are extremely monogamous, some people really can't be happy without multiple partners, and that most people are in between. I tend to agree with this.
*list of reasons why some of my male friends declined my offer of sex*
I'm sure that a couple of those were true. However, it was your assertion that all men would take the opportunity to have sex with their female friends. As it turns out, neither of us believe this is really true.
Anyway apart from the fact that you do sound useful to have around. >.> I am just curious what industry you work in. I am seriously guessing hospitality... There is a very real and well earned stigma attached to hospitality.
Not even close. I work in corporate computer sales for the world's largest computer manufacturer. It is my job to be the product expert and deal closer for the products in my division, and my customer base is national, not regional. The sales people find the business and my job is to make sure they win it. Some of my accounts are pretty small and some of them buy $70,000 of product a month.
Oh and I must thank you for further helping my belief that all women are really bisexual. That is one of my happier outlooks on life.[/qute]
To a limited degree. A lot of women would make out with other women but are not willing to, as one make-out sort of woman I know put it, "get their face down in it."
Nickolai77 said:
mshcherbatskaya said:
EDIT:
Regarding the Nice Guy phenomenon, embittered self-declared Nice Guys generally fail to attract women because they are not actually nice at all. [http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/12/explainer-what-is-nice-guy.html]
It would appear that blogger you linked as come to the unconfortable realisation that he, as he once thought, is not really a "nice guy" at all,however rather than deciding he is simply not a nice guy, he makes the common error of thinking that all the other nice guys are just like him, when clearly they are not.
I think it's worth a closer read, as he does make a distinction, pretty clearly I think, between genuinely nice guys and Nice Guys(tm). The person you are describing is a genuinely nice guy who may be a saddened and a little baffled at his continuing single status. The type of guy being shredded in the blog entry is the guy who turns downright mean upon rejection because he feels cheated by the fact that his dogging women around is not rewarded with the sex to which he feels he is entitled. It is really an elaborate and extended version of the idea that if a guy buys a woman an expensive dinner and night on the town, she owes him sex.
To a genuinely nice guy who remains persistantly single, I would suggest that he take at look at his life and see whether he is really taking responsibility for his own happiness and well-being. I think people who think they need to have a relationship, be they male or female, are very bad candidates for an actual relationship. Cheeze_Pavilion's advice is definitely worth considering.
As a pro-tip, on the practical side, if you live in a hole, which is to say, an apartment that is bare except for an unmade bed and a heap of laundry, one in which all the seating is arranged squarely facing an entertainment system dominated by your large TV and gaming console(s), you have created a very unwelcoming environment in which the majority of women will not want to stay for an evening, much less overnight. It demonstrates that your life is really arranged for your own solitary comfort and no woman with any independence or common sense wants the task of prying you out of it.
Now, if you are an Avykins, this is just fine. He really doesn't want a woman in his space or in his life, which is fine because he is very up front about it. If you are not an Avykins, however, arrange the seating so people face each other, hang a few nice framed posters on the wall, and for god's sake clean the bathroom. I have gone to visit guys, taken one look at the place I might have to wake up and shower in, and changed my mind about the possibility of a sleep-over.
Now, here's another surprise. I'm actually quite like you in my aversion to having people in my private space.
In fairness to myself, this is due to neurochemical issues rather than antisocial attitude. I don't like people watching me go helplessly batshit and they don't much enjoy it either. I'm rapid-cycling, mixed-state Bipolar I, which means that while I'm not cycling, I am a happy, fun, even attractive person, but at least three times a year I spend a month in a state best described as "Beware of Dog" with very brief stop at the begining in "Cat in Heat." I can deal with it in public and at work but you really don't want to be stuck in an apartment with me. I decided that it is really unfair for me to subject another person to that in a relationship, so after 20 years of trying, I am off the market.
The end result is that for about 25% of my life, I cannot be a happy person, and since I consider being a happy person a primary criteria for a healthy relationship, that's just not an option.
I can see the merits of the points the original poster makes but as people say, its a heavily generalised view.
I believe the points are true but only in the adolescent years and perhaps into the early twenties when the hormones are raging and many of the decisions you make are based on gut feeling rather than experience of similar situations. When women hit their late 20's/ early 30's I imagine they know damn well the difference between a nice guy and a "bad boy".
EDIT:
Regarding the Nice Guy phenomenon, embittered self-declared Nice Guys generally fail to attract women because they are not actually nice at all. [http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/12/explainer-what-is-nice-guy.html]
I think your right, i was just under the impression that the blogger was making a statement about nice guys in general.
I think nice guys do get girlfreinds in the end, during the early teenage years its pretty hard though. As women grow older, and nice guys gradually learn the ropes- they find each other.
Regarding rooms, atm i live with my parents, but in about 3 weeks i'm off to university- im a fairly tidy person, dont like mess. So i don't see that becoming a problem in my room, unfortunately due to the small size of the rooms, you carn't be very ambitious when it comes to room layout. Never the less, when i do have my own place i hope i remember what you say, what you say actually reminds me of A-Level environmental psychology.
You can be a nice guy, women find kindness and consideration attractive. But what they NEED is a man. And a man is confident, assertive and a able to assume responsibility for himself and if need be added responsibility for her when she needs it.
Really? Are you sure? You see, my mum really loves my dad. You can tell. And he's not exactly the most confident or assertive man in the world! What grounds are there for saying that what all (or even most) women look for above all else are the characteristic testosterone markers? And if other factors are more important then does it matter that guys play these mind games, if the majority of women can either see straight through or are unfazed by all the macho bull-hinky?
To respond to the main post: When i was single i would be slightly more willing to share personal secrets with close female friends than with close male friends, maybe in the name of furthering those friendships in a romantic direction. Does that make me manipulative, consciously or otherwise? It's not that my character with either my friends or that particular woman was an act, both of them were the real me. Similarly, can you really expect a jock with romantic aspersions to treat the girl of his dreams like another jock? In reality i think people behave differently around anyone, and the accusations depend on whether the two groups being considered are males and females, locals and foreigners or co-workers and bosses.
... What? So you're power-hungry, egocentric and dominant for participating in a debate?
Then that makes a clear majority of the human race wielders of those attributes, and it also makes the remaining minority very dull, indecisive and apathetic. Which is worse?
A debate requires consideration and thought on the topic. Most of the initial responses had very little to none of both, they were just bold statements that were a little more then childish. To answer the question however yes you are all of those things if you are willing to try to participate in a debate, otherwise you're just passive.
The minority, at least where I live, is much more then minor. Men, especially from the younger generations, have softened up a bit becoming more feminine. So to answer your question about which is worse, I am going to go for the men with no grasp on being men being the worst possible outcome. Its sad when you often find women who seem strong and more secure then the majority of men.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) )
