Becoming a Man: Male behaviour, personal responsibility and self-improvement

By William Rosebud

What does it really mean to be a man? In these times in which men are constantly being demonised by mainstream media and when everything traditionally masculine is being frowned upon in movies, advertisements and by social commentators, this question has no clear-cut answer. However, finding an answer to that question is extremely impor

• Language: English
• Publisher: Up in the Woods
• Release date: Feb 15, 2022
• ISBN: 9780645387513

Book preview

Frontcover.jpg

Imprint

Published by Up in the Woods

PO Box 32

Kilsyth VIC 3137

Copyright © 2022 William Rosebud

First published 2022

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever without prior permission of the copyright owner. Apply in writing to the publisher.

Edited by Scharlaine Cairns, Charlie C. Editorial Pty Ltd

Internal design and layout by Di Zign Pty Ltd

Cover image by Ante Hamersmit on Unsplash

Typeset in 10pt Heuristica and Roboto

Printed in Australia

ISBN: 978-0-6453875-1-3 (e-Book)

ISBN: 978-0-6453875-0-6 (Paperback)

C:\Users\Test\Documents\My files\Odd Jobs\Sudan cookbook\FINAL FOR DESIGN\Combined_logo_prepublication_300dpi.jpg

Disclaimers:

The information provided in this book is based on the author’s personal experience and research and does not substitute for professional medical advice or the advice of other qualified professionals. Neither the author or publisher are liable for issues associated with readers acting upon any information in this book.

The URLs in this book were current at the time of publication. The author and publisher are unable to guarantee the ongoing currency of any URLs appearing in this book.

Every effort has been made to trace and acknowledge copyright holders. The publishers would welcome any information from people who believe they own copyright to any material used in this book.

Dedication

To my loving wife, my beautiful daughter, and all my masters past and present.

Introduction (including a trigger warning)

♂

If we consider most of the twentieth century, and the twenty-first century so far, in terms of social developments, one of the main differences between previous eras and the current one is that female participation has increased and has permeated every level of daily life. The ability to largely avoid the possibility of unplanned and unexpected reproduction has allowed women to venture more easily into many arenas that had previously proven difficult for them; ranging from the global political sphere to the intimate and personal dimensions of the household, as well as every imaginable level in between – socially, in the workplace, in areas of communication, as consumers, and so on.

Even though there may be disagreement about whether this female emancipation is now complete or is still ongoing, and whether this has happened for better or for worse, the truth is that we are living in interesting but complex times in terms of male and female coexistence. ‘Interesting’ because, as the presence of women has permeated more and more into the social and labour spheres traditionally occupied mostly or solely by men, Pandora’s box has been opened to reveal a new era of coexistence and negotiation between genders and, maybe, even a crisis of identity for us all. Even though few of us welcome discord and crisis, no one can deny their potential as parts of a primordial broth from which opportunities and growth arise and develop. Whether discord and crisis become a problem, or an opportunity for further growth, simply depends on how we choose to face them.

For women, positive female social momentum has represented a liberation; a kind of emancipation that has brought to the table and highlighted as valuable traits considered traditionally feminine (such as respect, understanding, agreeability and compassion), which have become the central axis for social change in the years since the rise of the first wave of feminism.

Men, by comparison, haven’t been as fortunate. Nowadays, everything that has been traditionally considered masculine (for example, competitiveness, toughness or stoicism) is regarded by many as bad, undesirable and even ‘toxic’. We are living in times in which these traits are represented in the mainstream media as being part of the ‘toxic masculinity’ spectrum of behaviour and this agenda is further pushed by those resentful enough to lump all men into the same category. However, what is defined as toxic masculinity varies according to who is evaluating the behaviour, meaning the limits of ‘unacceptable’, ‘unjustifiable’ and ‘unreasonable’ remain blurred. This is of major importance if we consider that, currently, all men are being collectively accused of the social crimes committed, both presently and historically, by just a handful of men. Accusations of this nature become a kind of political football tossed around in the name of new identity politics. While a minority of men are indeed guilty of being sexual predators, beating their wives or committing all manner of crimes (see Chapter 2), some political parties, commentators and ideologues appear to expect all men to pay the price for these crimes simply for having been born male.

In response to these sick and slanted generalisations and, apparently, in search of the social approval deemed universally necessary, many of our peers have ridiculously pleaded guilty to crimes they have never committed – simply because they have been born under the same genetic configuration as the real perpetrators, as if the contents of their underwear or their possession of a Y chromosome makes them guilty by default. Preposterous! Nothing could be farther from the truth.

This behaviour of pleading guilty to never-committed crimes can be seen by some of us for the sheer stupidity it is (or, in some cases, might be agreed with as a point of view in a desperate attempt to gain female approval and acceptance) but it has, nonetheless, had a profound impact on how young men perceive maleness, virility and what is socially expected of them for having been born male. This has, without a doubt, impacted negatively on men – not on all men, of course, but on enough to make it a concern. Where and how the male crisis started is unknown to me. However, the crisis is patent and is there to be addressed.

We also live in a world in which moral and cultural relativisms are being shoved down people’s throats by scholars and, again, by the mainstream media. Anything traditionally virtuous and any morals upheld and treasured as those giving sound guidance to people are seen as nothing more than attempts by certain groups of people to exercise domination over others, resulting in ongoing conflict arising from moral disagreement. Feelings are held to be ultimate sacred belongings to be protected, while facts are deemed only to be oppressive narratives for justifying agendas. Meritocracy is thought to be just white middle-class privilege;¹ while societies,² cultures³ and so on apparently don’t exist as such, lest their existence offends someone. Even science itself is now seen by some to be simply a construct of western civilisation aimed at oppressing women and minorities.⁴

Men have suffered a double whammy because we are also being constantly reminded of our ‘responsibility’ for all that is wrong and bad, not only in the world today but also throughout the history of the world. This is especially true if a man happened to be born as part of the ‘wrong’ race! Apparently, being a white man makes you worse than a Jihadist, according to US Congresswoman for Minnesota Ilhan Omar.⁵ According to others, the roots of problems as reprehensible as mass shootings and the like lie with ‘angry white men’ and ‘toxic masculinity’.⁶ The latter is also being peddled as the root of bullying, harassment, and more.⁷ Chivalrous behaviour is deemed to be sexist⁸,⁹ and a construct for devaluing women,¹⁰ while many young men are withdrawing from our society to find meaning in alternatives, such as those found in video games.¹¹ Ultimately, this moral relativism has made a lot of men, especially the younger ones, unsure of what it means to be a man, what it means to be virile and what it is that others expect from us.

But, hang on, hang on! How can we be or become something about which everyone has a different opinion? That automatically begs the question: ‘What exactly does it mean to be a man?’ I realised some years ago that no one teaches us anything this essential and fundamental. Most people only have vague ideas about what ‘being a man’ means and, therefore, the concept lives in an eternally ethereal state which becomes hard to distil and explain. ‘Becoming a man’, in a practical sense – and with no one guiding us – becomes a lifelong journey in which we figure out things as we go (that is, if we are smart enough, pay attention to our social interactions and to those of others, and learn by making lots and lots of mistakes). That must be part of our male privilege, am I right? It is absolutely no wonder that some people have renounced that lifelong trip or are desperately trying to redefine it and its destination to suit their own needs. It is a difficult journey!

Even though ‘becoming a man’ can mean different things to different people – men and women alike – my observations and conversations with many people have allowed me to distil a message that permeates ancient myths, religions, novels (both old and modern), art and movies, female fantasies and meta-narratives around the world. I have discerned a form of essence and message that I believe lies at the centre of every interpretation of what it means to be a man, despite the coating or mask each interpretation wears (which is inevitably coloured by the personal experience of each person asked to define manhood, or by the artistic hand of the creator of each interpretation).

Male behaviour is not just ideas or interpretations. Despite the discourse of some anthropocentric pundits, humans are also animals. Modern science has already made this abundantly clear. Those who tell us that we humans are experts at controlling our basic instincts and that it is this that distinguishes us from animals are either lying to us, and to themselves, or have lived their lives paying absolutely no attention to the world around them.

But, while we are animals, we are not witless animals with no capability of control. We humans are, I believe, a special kind of animal with the ability to develop some control over our own desires and impulses. Undoubtedly, we are still animals whose abilities, for the most part, hang by a small and fragile thread relying heavily for its strength on a balancing act between fulfillment of basic needs and the degree to which our ability of control has been developed through experiences and introspection. Human behaviour – and male behaviour, by inclusion – warrants explanation, because a proper understanding of that behaviour is the first step to mastering it and can become the difference between having a fulfilling life with a happy partner and having a life filled with problems, resulting in being socially ostracised. In the long run, and more fundamentally, proper understanding of what it means ‘to be a man’ also means an understanding of the difference between being the subject of someone’s desire and being someone with whom others ultimately won’t bother. It is understandable then why this concept is deeply embedded in the fantasies and fan art of women around the world.

This book is divided into two parts. The first part will explore the roots of male behaviour from different perspectives, from the biological to the social and psychological, with a heavy focus on relevant scientific literature when appropriate. The second part of the book is framed to provide self-help. In it I will explore some aspects of male behaviour in a social context, including topics that may not have been subject to as much scientific scrutiny as others (such as dating, or fitness) but still constitute a central aspect of the male identity. I will use my personal experience of these topics mixed with some advice and ideas to drive the conversation. Finally, I will finish by sharing a short perspective on the subtext that I believe permeates most narratives of ‘manly’ behaviour: personal responsibility.

Although the scope of the content of this book is heterosexual male and female behaviour (by far the most studied group), it might also be of some interest to people of other sexual orientations. My intention for this book, by reference to my own experience and what my research has revealed, is to explore male behaviour (and a little bit of female behaviour when it’s useful to do so) from as many perspectives as possible, to help the reader better understand the complexity of what ‘being a man’ is, and what I believe that to entail. The variety of perspectives represented might make this book feel a bit disjointed at times but, in a way, I believe that it reflects the complexity of the topic of ‘masculinity’ and the variety of subjects of which that is composed. I will do my best to keep this apparent lack of cohesion to a minimum but, nonetheless, I hope this exploration will increase the reader’s awareness of the complexity and nuances of the subject of masculinity and, in the best-case scenario, provide sound ideas for achieving some of the goals that most men pursue, like increasing their likeability, improving their lives, avoiding making terrible mistakes, and having better relationships and sexual experiences.

An explanatory note

Throughout this book, you will notice that I use the terms ‘girls’, ‘women’ and ‘ladies’ interchangeably. I do so partly to avoid repetition and to reduce the risk of the writing becoming boring, but this is not to say that all three are exactly the same. There is a massive distinction between girls, women, and ladies, just as there is between boys, men, and gentlemen. From a human perspective, there is no doubt that they all have their place and value. But, from a dating perspective, it is clear the differences between these categories needs to be appreciated. Both males and females tend to agree on this. In order, from lowest ranked to highest, the order is:

Girl ➞ Woman ➞ Lady

Probably the most basic and important difference between ‘girls’, ‘women’ and ‘ladies’ is the level of personal and emotional maturity, life experience, etiquette and social awareness we, as males, need to possess in order to access and be accepted by the more highly ranked females – and, when I say ‘maturity’, I’m not talking about how old we are.

The same applies to males. The hierarchy is:

Boy ➞ Man ➞ Gentleman

This book is about the development of a ‘man’ from a ‘boy’, and will also briefly touch on gentlemanly behaviour. Becoming a man – a ‘true’ man, I mean – is, after all, a cornerstone of happiness in the life of a human male. We will come back to these points and the ranked hierarchies later in this book.

Something to keep in mind (the trigger warning)

Having previously touched upon the topic of modern science and the progress it has made in describing human behaviour, now would be a good time to come clean and give you a piece of advice to keep in mind before we go any further. There is no doubt that science is one of the best tools we have for describing the world around us – but it usually results in conclusions being drawn from general trends in data, rather than attention being paid to every individual point in that data. I am advising you to keep this in mind as you read on, so you do not overreact to anything you will read.

The topic of ‘being a man’ combines some areas and dimensions of interest that have been extensively explored from scientific perspectives (for example, sexual behaviour) with others that are entirely unscientific as far as I’m aware (for example, dating). Others (such as consciousness) have been tackled as scientifically as possible but are still elusive and remain the subject of many heated debates. However, it remains true that science does represent one of our best tools – if not the best so far – for accurately describing the world around us.

But, admittedly, science is not perfect. Scientific explorations and descriptions rely heavily on appropriate methodology which, for many reasons, can sometimes be hard to achieve. For example, there might not have been enough study subjects (‘patients’ or ‘volunteers’) to achieve the necessary statistical confidence for the results to be considered representative of the population at large. In other cases, the techniques used to obtain the data (statistical or otherwise) might present significant limitations, or the concepts or constructs the investigation is aimed at evaluating might require more polishing before both the concepts and the findings can be considered representative enough of reality to earn consensus regarding scientific and social acceptance. Good science also relies on scientists themselves being able to detach their own moral and political views from their studies and the subjects at hand, which can sometimes be very difficult to achieve when an individual’s pride, the funding of his/her position, or his/her career credibility depends on the very existence of an unsolved problem or its appropriate representation (or misrepresentation). Peer review (the process of scientists reviewing each other’s work) helps researchers and the research techniques applied in many fields of research to be the best they can be, but there is also a risk of corruption should they be invaded by too many ideologues with the same twisted ideas (search online for the ‘Grievance Studies’ or ‘Sokal Squared’ scandal¹²,¹³ ) or by scientists with too many vested interests working for corporations who need to keep selling their products. Even so, despite its limitations and a few rotten apples, science remains one of the best tools we have for describing what we observe.

Science – to the disgust of many – does describe phenomena in terms of probabilities, populations and levels of confidence and certainty, because it uses statistical approaches to prove or disprove hypotheses. Those of us familiar with statistics will know that a mean or an average alone does not tell us anything about the variability of the data or what happens at the tail-ends of the distribution. It is important to keep this in mind when we make generalisations about what ‘men’ do or what ‘women’ do. We obviously cannot be describing the behaviour of every single member of those groups; we are describing general behaviours and trends in whole populations. There will always be enough variability in behaviours among men in general, or women in general (or among the members of whatever group we are studying), for us to say, ‘Hey! I know a guy/girl who is not like that!’ This does not invalidate the conclusion of a study or any general statement made about a group. Where appropriate, I will be referencing many, many studies to back my claims throughout this book.

So, just to recap, despite its limitations and whether we like it or not, science is one of the best tools we have for describing our world. Keep this in mind as you read, so the conclusions I present about men and women at large that have been reached by many scientists are not a trigger for you to react negatively to the content. This is the trigger warning I indicated would be included.

Men and women do differ significantly, but they are also very similar. The truth is that they are more similar than dissimilar and, if we obtained data from both populations (men and women) about many of their psychological traits, the graphed data would appear as two bell curves with very close maxima (higher points), similar to the graph below which resembles, for example, the graph of the results obtained by Yanna J. Weisberg and colleagues for the ‘Overlapping distributions of [personality trait] agreeableness for men and women’.¹⁴

This tells us two important things: first, that men and women are so similar in some regards that discriminating in favour of men over women is by no means justifiable, neither legally nor practically; and, second, that men and women do tend to differ in many traits, especially those concerned with psychology, such as Agreeableness and Neuroticism, which are two of the five factors of what is known as the ‘Big Five’ personality model (the other three factors being Openness, Conscientiousness and Extraversion).¹⁵ Whether we like the differences displayed in any of these traits or not is another issue, but that doesn’t undermine their validity. I do really hope that we can keep in perspective what science brings to us. Openness to consider and discuss facts and theories with which we are presented is something we should all embrace for the sake of a civilised society.

Why our attitudes matter

If we are standing surrounded by the current times and don’t think that ‘patriarchy’ is something bad which needs to be obliterated, we are out of touch – at least that’s what legions of individuals across the political spectrum want us to think. For over half a century there have been movements against ‘The Patriarchy’ and its structure but, nowadays, third-wave feminism has certainly made more of a display about that, in every possible way. The critical mass of the movement appears to be increasing, with no sign of backing down and appears to have the authorities onside.

While I don’t call myself a ‘feminist’, that doesn’t mean I don’t support ideas for a more egalitarian society or for equal opportunities for both genders whenever possible (which is very different from ‘equity’, meaning equal outcomes or equal representation for both genders, and is usually the outcome of very discriminatory policies or ideas). The problem is, by labelling ourselves as anything nowadays, we open the door for others to pigeonhole us, call us names, distort our arguments and make straw men out of us and those arguments. This phenomenon is commonplace nowadays, in a culture, day and age in which thinking is just too much effort and people live happily justifying their personal views of the world, making representations of reality that amount to mere caricatures and espousing overly simplistic answers that ‘explain’ everything. That is something I want to avoid – and it is the main reason I am publishing this book under the pseudonym ‘William Rosebud’, because I want my ideas, not my person, to be discussed. If you do know me personally, please be adult enough to keep my identity to yourself.

The way I am writing could make a perceptive reader aware of my socioeconomic status or my background but, if you are smart enough to deduce that, I’m confident that you will also be smart enough to criticise my ideas and not the person behind them. This debate of ideas is something we desperately need more and more nowadays – no matter how ‘offensive’ people might find the ideas debated. A large portion of our western identity is built on defiance of authority, free speech and the pursuit of truth through evidence and knowledge. This is something I see being slowly eroded by hypersensitive generations with no willingness to engage with reality; blinded to the fact that exchange of ideas, no matter how offensive people might think they are, is the only way to keep a healthy society running and safe from tyranny.

I’m neither leftist nor right-wing; neither Democrat nor Liberal. I’m not a feminist, men’s rights activist, honey badger, nationalist, communist, or anarchist – nothing! I am just someone with ideas – and that’s how I manage to side with no one or, more often, side with someone on a single topic and quickly become a ‘traitor’ as soon as the topic changes. Everyone has an agenda. Mine is just trying to better understand the world and society through the exchange of ideas and through learning from as many people and disciplines as possible, while trying to keep my morals and emotions away from tainting my thoughts.

There’s nothing wrong with being empathetic and being able to identify with someone else’s feelings and situation. That is something we must all learn to do if we are to be functional members of society. But, as Ben Shapiro once said, ‘If you have empathy, you put yourself in the shoes of that person but by doing so you’re now not in the shoes of everybody else.’¹⁶ That’s something we shouldn’t forget! We are not alone. Our own kind is not the only kind around and we are all citizens of the same country. While we might think that we are right and the other side of an argument is wrong, I usually find that neither side has all the answers nor is morally perfect. Far from it. Sometimes there is apparently more than one truth.

In the field of statistics, Simpson’s Paradox is a good example of what I’m talking about. In the case of that paradox a trend can appear in several different groups of data but that trend surprisingly disappears or reverses when those groups are combined.¹⁷

Policies need to be made for everyone, not just for those with whom we empathise. Whenever any of us, for the sake of social justice, push for policies that favour those we deem to be oppressed, we end up creating more problems than we solve. This is usually just because we didn’t sit down to think and debate long and hard enough about exactly what we were doing and what the probable consequences were of pushing for what we wanted. Just think what the implications of the latest chants to ‘defund the police’ would mean for a society. We also fail to see the likely incentives our policies create, simply because we are too enamoured with our own political visions, which can be simply out of touch with the complexity of social and economic realities and human behaviour at large.

There are many ways to see the world. Other people thinking differently from us does not automatically mean that either of us is right or wrong. It means that people need to come together, open their minds, work out how they reached the conclusions they did and work towards finding common ground together for solutions that will mean everyone is better off in the long run. We should be aiming for equality of opportunity and balance, not for revenge and flipping the tables on oppression. For that aim to be achieved, we must all be able to speak out about our ideas – hopefully in a respectful way. It is that which is the basis of a more civilised and egalitarian society, not the suppression of one side of the conversation for the sake of a particular agenda being driven by the other side.

But here I am, perhaps stupidly, asking people to do without tribalism, which is one of the most basic instincts of human beings. For the sake of a civilised society, tribalism is clearly conquerable, at least to some extent – as are most of our innermost and darkest desires, fantasies and impulses. We have the ability to discuss ideas without jumping down each other’s throats just because we don’t share the same belief system and we are able to focus on ideas rather than on people. People die, so of what long-term benefit is it to focus on people? Ideas, on the contrary, are timeless and can shape our destiny for aeons to come, unconstrained by the boundaries of any present situation. Who cares who came up with an idea originally? It is the idea itself that matters, and people not being judged by the colour of their skin or, in this case, the contents of their undies but by the content of their character. I, too, ‘have a dream’.¹⁸

Sheltering people from ideas, by creating ‘safe spaces’, creates the antithesis of what is really needed – especially at universities where students should be opening their minds and allowing their ideas to clash against the ideas of others. We need to stop protecting people from the world just because the world is not what we want it to be, or because we fear for the mental health of our children. In the long run, those children will go out and face the world anyway – and the more they grow up attached to their beliefs, the harder the reality check and the bigger the shock when they do. Creating a whole generation of people willing to act as mindless Orwellian Thought Police¹⁹ to protect their mental wellbeing, as evidenced in the numerous reports of campus protests over ‘controversial’²⁰ or ‘offensive’²¹ speakers (or the more prevalent and widespread ‘cancel culture’²² ), is the last thing we need when creating an environment for the safe coexistence of antagonistic views which will never cease to exist. Again, discussing ideas, rather than people, is central to maintaining a peaceful, civilised environment for all of us, regardless of our political orientation, sexual preference and religious belief. We are all citizens of the same country and inhabitants of the same world.

Part I:

From the Inside

Chapter 1

The way of (some) men

♂

What does it really mean to be a man? That depends on who we ask.

From a biological perspective, being a man is inheriting one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (producing a normal XY karyotype or chromosome profile) with a properly functioning sex-determining region Y (SRY) gene, which codes for a protein that cause the foetus to develop male gonads and prevents development of female reproductive structures. This distinguishes it from the obvious alternative of two X chromosomes (producing a normal XX karyotype; which is that of a female). There is little debate about the physiological truth of that.

However, from a social perspective, the subject of ‘being/becoming a man’ can give rise to a heated debate with no clear-cut answer. This is especially true nowadays, when everyone has a different opinion and the holders of some current