notes-social-manliness

Brett McKay?'s capsule theory of manliness:

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/04/07/what-is-the-core-of-masculinity/

McKay?'s 3 P’s of Manhood are protect, procreate, and provide. However, women play a part in these things too. Which is most exclusively manly? Protect. Women are biologically useful for bearing children. Because they can't do that, men are more expendable, so it makes evolutionary sense to expend (more) men rather than (more) women in war (and McKay? claims that part of manliness is accepting that you are expendable). Men also evolved to be stronger, possibly both because they don't have to bear children, and also because they are expendable.

This leads to Donovan's 4 tactical (amoral) virtues, as stated by McKay?:

" Strength: Physical prowess and power; ability to dominate an opponent (of the natural or human variety) instead of being dominated, and to stand fast and immovable when pushed.

Courage: The spirit /will/discipline to engage and employ one’s strength when inwardly tempted to shrink/run/hide. There are “higher” forms of courage, but at its most fundamental, it represents an outwardly demonstrated indifference to risk, pain, and physical danger.

Mastery: Skill and adeptness in using the techniques and technology employed in hunting and fighting; a deft understanding of knowledge that saves lives and furthers the interests of your group.

Honor: Traditional honor is not the same as integrity — living up to your own, personal standards. Traditional honor is a reputation for strength, courage, and mastery — as judged by other men. Honorable men care about being manly, knowing that each individual member’s prowess in the tactical virtues bolsters the strength and reputation of the gang as a whole and thus deters attack from rival gangs. Dishonorable men, on the other hand, evince indifference or hostility to the standards, weakening the group and leaving it more vulnerable. "

another thing Donovan notes about honor is that it is related to showing committment. By caring what your peers think of you, you show that evidence you intend to be attached to the group for the long-term.

McKay? theorizes that early humans lived with a constant threat of violence because the perimeter of their tribe's territory was relatively close. He talks about men's role as "perimeter-keepers" and hypothesizes that "What men respect in other men (and women find attractive), is rooted in what men wanted in the men to the left and the right of them as they stood together side-by-side on the perimeter.". As civilization advances, the size of tribes increases and the perimeter gets farther away. For those far from the perimeter, violence may not be as much of a threat, so they have the luxury of cultivating the higher virtues, among them Beauty, Wisdom, Justice, and Truth, and compassion.

As for feminism, McKay says:

"It seems like it’s popularly thought that for thousands of years patriarchy existed as part of nearly every culture on earth because people were too backwards and bigoted to realize what an unfair and oppressive system it was, and then finally, finally, in the middle of the 20th century, people became enlightened enough to rebel against the system and bring it down.

I don’t think this is quite correct.

The reason feminism emerged when it did was because it could emerge when it did – in the most peaceful, comfortable, resource-rich environment in human history; it was a time when danger had completely receded from the perimeter, and when technology had developed to the point that most jobs could be performed just as well by women as by men."

McKay? also lists 'elements that underlie the 3 Ps':