So I found this website "The Art of Manliness"
It's not a MRA site, but while I'm convinced there are a few MRA posters, I think a certain number of men (and women) think more like this. (These are the ones who argue about doors, completely missing the point) Nothing so defined as this site, but more a vague feeling of what a man is and what men should be doing, and how men should be acting.
What caught my attention was a description of how to properly tuck in your shirt--- which I thought was pretty funny, up until I remembered all the fashion advice women are inundated with, then it was far less funny.
So this goes back to old fashioned basic definition of masculinity, completely heteronormative of course.
The article, "What is the core of masculinity" is interesting in it's naïveté, it's insistence that man was born to be the "protector"
But in studying them, one can’t help but notice that their requirements are not exclusively manly. Haven’t women played a part in these roles, not just now, but since time immemorial? Is it possible then to drill down through these fundamentals even further, to find the role and its attendant attributes that are, if not exclusively manly, then the most distinctively masculine — the very core of manhood?
If we look at the procreator and provider imperatives, we find that they are roles that men and women share – and that what is distinctively masculine about them comes down to a difference in emphasis.
In the procreator role, it most certainly takes two to tango. The emphasis is simply placed on the man taking the initiative in getting the proceedings started.
In the provider role, men and women have shared the responsibility for contributing sustenance to their families since the dawn of time. Here the emphasis is on the husband contributing more than the wife, and making a more vital contribution (protein vs. plants, in premodern times).
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/04/07/what-is-the-core-of-masculinity/
Now this is patently bullshit, but at least it's polite bullshit. Or perhaps passive-aggressive bullshit. It's not so much Evo-psych (although it is that as well) as it is every western from the '50's.
The site has many articles, a variety of topics, and while I didn't read everything, these guys seemed to be able to remain civil.
The danger, or perhaps the futility, is that they are wrong, sickly charming, but wrong.
So I wonder if we have something else going on here besides the nasty MRA type derailments and DU's apparent inability to civilly discuss sexism or gender roles. These types, have learned these masculine vales from their mothers and fathers as well as society, and can't see their way to anything else. The core of the "masculine" ideal is under attack wherever they go, and you can see this in knee jerk responses. They wouldn't be young men nessisarily either. Anyway, the deeper you go into the site, the more the thought 'WTF' comes to mind. To me the fact that this site even exists explains those who are not MRA's but remain close minded and hostile to feminists.
= new reply since forum marked as read
From a scan of the headings and links. For example:
The three P's of manliness are: Protect, Procreate, and Provide. http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/03/31/the-3-ps-of-manhood-a-review/
Well, everyone in the species is capable of protecting and providing, and nobody's procreating without help from the opposite sex, in some way, so screw that.
Then there's this list:
The 3 P’s of Manhood: A Review
by Brett on March 31, 2014 · 43 comments
in A Man's Life, On Manhood
men
Are men everywhere alike in their concern (and desire) for being manly?
Is the concept of manliness meaningless and entirely culturally relative?
For the last several weeks we have been exploring the answers to these questions by discussing the findings contained in Dr. David D. Gilmore’s Manhood in the Making.
Twenty years ago, Gilmore set out to conduct an exhaustive cross-cultural analysis of how masculinity is perceived and lived around the world.
What he discovered was that far from being exceptional and widely divergent, conceptions of what constitutes a “real man” have been common and consistent through time and around the world. A distinct code of manhood has not only been part of nearly every society on earth — whether agricultural or urban, premodern or advanced, patriarchal or relatively egalitarian — these codes invariably contain the same three imperatives; a male who aspires to be a man must protect, procreate, and provide.
As the subject is a fascinating and vital one, we have given each of these “3 P’s of Manhood” a thorough treatment. It was definitely a lot to take in; it’s really turned into a kind of Manhood 101 course! So today, for those who didn’t make it through the beastly posts, and for those who did but could use a quick re-orientation, today we’re providing a crib sheet that distills what we have covered thus far down to the basic fundamentals.
The 3 P’s of Manhood in Review
Protect
protect5
The essence of protection is the “need to establish and defend boundaries.” Boundaries create a sense of identity and trust. Should that line be crossed, men will spring into action. Men are called on to guard the perimeter between danger and safety, protecting tribe and family from predators, human enemies, and natural disasters.
A man adds to his individual honor by developing and demonstrating prowess in the protector role. At the same time, he bolsters his community’s reputation for strength as well, as the tribe’s overall reputation serves as a form of protection in and of itself — functioning as a deterrent to attack.
The protector role requires:
Physical strength and endurance.
Skill in the use of weapons and strategy.
Courage – the ability to stand one’s ground, even when inwardly scared.
Physical and emotional stoicism – an insensibility to physical pain and coolness under pressure.
Voluntary, graceful acceptance of one’s expendability – a man glories in the fact he may have to lay down his life for his people.
Public demonstration of one’s aptitude in the protector role, as shown through physical contests (wrestling, sparring, competitive sports). It is important not only to demonstrate strength and skill in these contests, but to show one’s gameness – that you’re a scrapper who’ll keep coming back for more even when battered.
Why men were historically given this role:
Men have on average greater physical strength than women.
Wombs are more valuable than sperm.
Procreate
kiss
The imperative to procreate essentially requires that a man act as pursuer of a woman, successfully impregnate her, and thus create a “large and vigorous family” that expands his lineage as much as possible.
The procreator role requires:
Acting as the initiator in the seduction/courtship of women.
Virility and potency – the ability to “get it up.”
The ability to sexually satisfy a woman.
Fecundity and having as many children as possible.
Why men were historically given this role:
Higher testosterone and thus sexual drive.
Ability to have numerous children and higher desire to spread seed.
Provide
hunt
The essence of provision is the ability to tame nature, to turn chaos into order, to take the raw materials of life and transform them into something of value. It involves, as Gilmore puts it, “purposive construction” — “commanding and assertive action that adds something measurable to society’s store.”
Hunting is the “provisioning function par excellence,” for it involves all the manly attributes (physical strength, mastery of tools, discipline and determination, initiative, etc.) and is a creative act that parallels battle, sport, and sex.
The provider role requires:
Contributing the lion’s share of sustenance to one’s tribe/family (about a 70/30% split between husband and wife across times and cultures).
Resourcefulness – cleverness, the ability to maneuver around obstacles, come up with creative solutions to problems, turn scarce resources into something of value.
Becoming self-reliant – dependency is seen as shameful in a man, because he cannot be fully autonomous and provide for others if he is still dependent on his childhood family for care. It is seen as especially important to become independent of one’s mother.
Being generous with your community – a man who does well for himself is expected to give back.
Why were men were historically given this role:
Greater physical strength than women (hunting could be strenuous).
More expendable than women (hunting could be fatal).
Required journeying far from home (it would have been difficult for pregnant/nursing mothers and mothers with small children to undertake lengthy, arduous trips).
The Elements that Underlie the 3 P’s
There are several shared standards and necessary prerequisites that are common to all three of the P’s of Manhood:
An earned status. Manhood is different from biological maleness, and it does not accrue to a man naturally through maturation. Rather it is a status of honor that must be earned through merit – by demonstrating excellence in the manly imperatives.
Autonomy. Autonomy involves the “absolute freedom of movement” — “a mobility of action.” It means being able to make your own decisions, call your own shots, create your own goals, set your own pace, carve your own path. If restrictions are placed on the ability of man to strive for excellence in the 3 P’s, the chance to achieve manhood, and the existence of a true culture of manhood, disappears.
Energy. A man is expected to overcome passivity, to always be up and doing, and to ceaselessly strive to achieve. A man is charged with taking the initiative in any endeavor, be it courtship or business.
Danger and risk. All of the imperatives are set up as win/lose propositions. Risk may take the form of bodily harm or simply the blow to one’s manly reputation that comes from the failure to demonstrate competence in the standards of manhood. Most seriously, “losing” may mean losing one’s life. To win means gaining greater access to resources and the respect and honor of one’s fellow men and tribe. Mens’ greater amounts of testosterone fuel the desire to take these risks.
And it goes on and on, in a most manly fashion!
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/03/31/the-3-ps-of-manhood-a-review/
And anyone who deviates from that paradigm, well, they're not doing their job! 