So what makes a man manly/masculine?
Being atypically masculine does not make you less a man.
You can be manly without being a stereotype.
Discussion
Living virtuously in accordance with his state in life.
This varies from one man to another, depending on his circumstances. The college athlete will have to be studious in his classes, disciplined in his training, courageous on the sports field, and prudent in his personal life. The husband and father has to practice many of the same virtues, but they might look very different. He has to be tender and attentive towards his wife, gentle and playful with his kids, and diligent in his work life.
We can speak of specifically masculine virtues because certain virtues are proper to the roles men are called to perform in their homes, communities, and nations.
The key is that none of this has anything to do with externals. It's all about interior disposition. We often conflate the two.
A man is not defined by how much he can bench, how well he can grill, or whether he can smoke a pipe. Those are accidental. The essence of manhood rests in his interior disposition and in his virtue.
Might we say that the externals you identify here flow from a masculine interior disposition? Benching, grilling, smoking can become characatures but it doesn't follow that therefore they aren't masculine. Benching increases T which increases masculinity. Grilling flows from the disposition of being a provider. Since grilling most often centers on meat, and meat, particularly red meat, increases T. So it seems to skew more masculine than, say, baking. As for pipe smoking, that seems to be a predominantly male activity, much like cigar smoking or drinking scotch. I dont know that I can make a strong argument at the moment as to *why* women generally are less interested in these particular recreations but I think it still underscores my point—which is not to get lost in the weeds and argue that *these activities actually do define masculinity!* but rather that there is a reason these are stereotypes. They naturally arise out of the masculine internal disposition.
You said it well. Stereotypically masculine activities or appearances are masculine *per accidens*, not *per se*. That is, they are not essential to the nature of human maleness, but they often flow from that nature.
My point, of course, is that these accidents are not the essence of masculinity, so it is possible to lack those accidents but still be perfectly, virtuously masculine in being.
Right. I would say (and we are likely saying the same thing) that essentials are characteristics and God-given roles that then translate to activities/actions.
Yet, it makes sense to identify certain activities and actions as masculine or as reflecting masculinity. They are not essential but the essentials bear certain types of fruit in the real world. Benching is not essentially masculine but does display masculinity.
My *yet* statement here isn't making a counterpoint as much as thinking through the different angles on this and how I would argue the point(s) being made.
Yep I understand what you're saying.
I personally lean away from those externals, even though they are often accidental signs of masculine virtue, because, at least in today's world, we too often miss the forest for the trees.
An able-bodied, virtuous man should look to preserving his health and strength, and exercise and lifting weights may often be a part of that. However, we should be careful not disparage the old or infirm man as less capable of masculine virtue just because he is less capable of this or that particular accident.
Appreciate the discussion.
Part of the reason I lean into the accidental is precisely *because* of today's world (feminism, gender hysteria, not knowing what a man or woman is, etc). The externals (accidentals) are therefore helpful to distinguish essentials.
But, as we have pointed out, there are ditches on both sides of the road, so I agree that we do not want to conflate externals and essentials lest we create characatures of male and female. To disparage the old or infirm as being *less masculine* is wrong, but there are things that are generally true of and normative for men and masculinity that will always vary by degree on the granular level of each man. Principles are still true even if for some guy or some demographic the particulars vary.
What you said about the importance of a man cultivating his strength is a good example. I encourage most men to work out under the framework that strengthening and disciplining the body is an important part of being a man. But gym time itself isn't the manly thing because there are guys who work in the trades that strengthen and discipline their bodies. The important things are strength and discipline (mental and physical fortitude) not necessarily the means of acquiring it.
I actually think that the antidote to the gender confusion of today is precisely a return to the substance of masculinity and femininity, rather than the accidents.
As far as I can tell, we've lost sight of the substances and replaced them with empty stereotypes, and as a result, those who don't fit the stereotypes are instantly thrown into crisis. They have nothing of substance to fall back on when the appearance of their masculinity or femininity is called into question.
It's a consequence of being told by our culture that our identity is liquid and self-made. When that is the belief, there is nothing to root out identifying deeper than the surface.
Full agreement. My intention is to say that the acidents are helpful, especially in clown world, when they truly flow from the substance and aren't simply a hollow display of masculinity without a real foundation.
