What Makes a Man?

um7y1h83ge06nx

Hi lads,

I started a thread on this before but I inadvertently broke some forum rules so it got (rightly) locked.

Anyway, it dealt with my opinion that I sometimes feel that certain males regard others that argue on points of sexual inequality, positive discrimination, that they are whiners and they should be a 'man' and stop complaining etc.

That piece got me thinking about how men define what makes a man. Where I grew up (a rural area) my brother and I always felt that a lot of the lads defined themselves by fighting and road racing.

My brother and I (and I'm not saying this is right or wrong) tended and still do tend to define our 'maleness' through our ability to meet women, sex etc.

So the questions I pose to the men and women that frequent this forum

* Is the question in the title valid, or is the whole topic a bit pointless.

* And if it is valid, what do you think defines you (or someone you know if you're female) as a man?


I don't think there is a definite answer, only lots and lots of different opinions. Could make for an interesting thread though.

Galvasean

Real men are 8 feet tall, eat a bowl of nails for breakfast (with no milk), are physically incapable of showing human emotions (other than pride and anger), covered in thick hair (excluding on their head of course), bed 60 women per week, only like football and UFC, have a six foot long cock and enjoy fist fighting in a bar room environment.
Or so some would have you believe.

Got a dick? You're a man. Everything else is superfluous IMO. I don't buy into ANY of that 'Real men do X' malarky.

um7y1h83ge06nx

True.

I was just thinking of things that people commented about me saying there were unusual for a guy. They didn't say it nastily, more of an observation:

* I'm not that interested in soccer. I like watching some other field sports but I find soccer a little dull.

* I'm quite interested in people interacting and the psychology behind it. In particular I find social interactions fascinating.

The more I think about it the more I agree with the only qualifying factor being that you have a penis.

However, modern culture have really pushed on people what define a man or a woman. Ads, magazines, films and tv shows have all had an impact on that.

It must be particularly hard for teenager when they are trying to understand and define themselves and they get bombarded with all these things.

parker kent

X and Y chromosomes. Most other stuff is sociological norms and inventions.

Morgase

Bah, parker kent beat me to it! I was going to say if you are in possession of an X and a Y rather than being XX, then that is the criterion and no more.

Galvasean

Nova Tender Sorbet wrote: »

However, modern culture have really pushed on people what define a man or a woman. Ads, magazines, films and tv shows have all had an impact on that.

And what do all of these aspects of modern culture have in common? They all want to sell you something. 'I better buy this brand of shampoo, deodorant, jeans, crisps etc.'
If they can convince you that you need to buy something to be a man then they make a truckload of money.
Quick example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3_nj4-mN90

Pretty much everybody who tries to push a certain form of 'manliness' or 'masculinity' on the public is trying to sell something. Always have been:

um7y1h83ge06nx

The Lynx ads are another great example.

Galvasean

Nova Tender Sorbet wrote: »

The Lynx ads are another great example.

Ah yes, "Use our deodorant. Angels will have sex with you

despite not actually having genitals!

"
Reminds me a bit of the ad for pawtucket Patriot beer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsBa-bSGlvU

iptba

Galvasean wrote: »

And what do all of these aspects of modern culture have in common? They all want to sell you something. 'I better buy this brand of shampoo, deodorant, jeans, crisps etc.'
If they can convince you that you need to buy something to be a man then they make a truckload of money.

Pretty much everybody who tries to push a certain form of 'manliness' or 'masculinity' on the public is trying to sell something. Always have been:

Good point(s).

It is or has been on occasions been used to pressurise men or individual men in other ways e.g. do something dangerous/which has risk attached to it (or might involve a bit of pain): "be a man, don't be a wimp/coward"

Galvasean

iptba wrote: »

It is or has been on occasions been used to pressurise men or individual men in other ways e.g. do something dangerous/which has risk attached to it (or might involve a bit of pain): "be a man, don't be a wimp/coward"

Case in point: War.
"Not signing up for the war effort, what are ya some kind of wimp!?"
"Well, I don't like being shot at for the sake of big oil.... So yeah!"

dave92

A real man can carry all the shopping from the car in one go..... including the spuds!!!:-)

Delirium

dave92 wrote: »

A real man can carry all the shopping from the car in one go..... including the spuds!!!:-)

:P

Seriously though, this is essentially it.

parker kent wrote: »

X and Y chromosomes. Most other stuff is sociological norms and inventions.

yawha

parker kent wrote: »

X and Y chromosomes. Most other stuff is sociological norms and inventions.

Morgase wrote: »

Bah, parker kent beat me to it! I was going to say if you are in possession of an X and a Y rather than being XX, then that is the criterion and no more.

inb4 offended transgendered person disputes this.

cantdecide

What about politeness, chivalry and gentlemanliness (I love making up words) etc. are these not manly traits? This topic makes my head hurt. I tick quite a few of GS's prerequistes up there but usually, I just hang out talking about my feelings so where do I stand?

My only real concession to blokiness is my love of bikes and cars. I think the main thing is to walk your own line and do your own thing as an individual. Maybe these things bestow 'manliness' on you or maybe not. Maybe being manly is high on your agenda, maybe not but you have to figure out what's right for you as an individual.

Logical Fallacy

cantdecide wrote: »

What about politeness, chivalry and gentlemanliness (I love making up words) etc. are these not manly traits? This topic makes my head hurt. I tick quite a few of GS's prerequistes up there but usually, I just hang out talking about my feelings so where do I stand?

Here is the thing though, what is "politeness", things considered crude in some circles are the norm in other, "gentlemanliness" is an other open ended concept...one mans gent is another mans wuss. As for Chivalry, it's one of the most metamorphic phrases in the history of language, having all kinds of meanings and connotations throughout history.

The question in the OP is easily answered, what makes a man is strictly biological (the feelings of some people being ignored here for a minute)...it's a gene thing and always will be.

We can get far more complicated and philosophical if we start looking at a question like..."what is a man?" or "what should a man be?"

Count Duckula

parker kent wrote: »

X and Y chromosomes. Most other stuff is sociological norms and inventions.

Morgase wrote: »

Bah, parker kent beat me to it! I was going to say if you are in possession of an X and a Y rather than being XX, then that is the criterion and no more.

So neither of you think there's anything inherently culturally "manly" at all? Or, if there is, you are utterly immune to it? Given that the question is asking what makes a "man" in the cultural sense it's both disingenuous and facetious to answer like that.

Morgase, are you seriously suggesting that your boyfriend could walk in wearing a dress and makeup and you wouldn't bat an eyelid? Sure he's still a man; he's got a penis, after all.

parker kent

Count Duckula wrote: »

So neither of you think there's anything inherently culturally "manly" at all? Or, if there is, you are utterly immune to it? Given that the question is asking what makes a "man" in the cultural sense it's both disingenuous and facetious to answer like that.

Morgase, are you seriously suggesting that your boyfriend could walk in wearing a dress and makeup and you wouldn't bat an eyelid? Sure he's still a man; he's got a penis, after all.

Well I did say everything else manly tends to be either sociological norms or inventions. What makes a man changes based on location, upbringing and time. What is manly now may not be manly in 100 years time. Same way what is manly now may not have been manly 100 years ago.

I don't buy into anything being necessarily manly. Sure there are cultural norms, but they change. There is nothing that "makes a man". Sure some things are considered manly, but I wouldn't say they make a man.

Links234

yawha wrote: »

inb4 offended transgendered person disputes this.

Hi there! I dispute this! :pac:

Logical Fallacy

Links234 wrote: »

Hi there! I dispute this! :pac:

Hang on, i thought you were going the other way?

Links234

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Hang on, i thought you were going the other way?

what? which? huh?

just disputing that chromosomes define sex. XY Woman gives birth to XY daughter for example.

Delirium

Links234 wrote: »

what? which? huh?

just disputing that chromosomes define sex. XY Woman gives birth to XY daughter for example.

just wondering how you define sex then? I always assumed it was down to chromosomes.

I think the OP is right when he says the topic is pointless. It appears to be based on the archaic idea, which thankfully although still around is slowly receding, that there is any different of note between men and women in how they should act, or what their roles are in this world.

However the way our society is going today, there really is no difference between men and women except the general biological differences of reproduction. There is no set roles for any of them. With few exceptions, certainly not enough to be significant, we all have the same vote, we all work in the same jobs, we all do the same housework.

There is almost no role one can play that the other is precluded from in modern day. We can appeal to cultural norms to get our differences, such as “men wearing dresses” which has been brought up, but even then I do not think it counts. Look at Eddie Izzard. He happily wears dresses and make up. Do I consider him “less of a man” than me?

Hell no. The guy learned French and German in a period of time measured in weeks and had the courage to do full stage shows in those countries in those languages. He then went on to run 43 full length marathons in 51 consecutive days. By most measurements I can think of, mental and physical, he is much better a person than I.

Sticking on a pink shirt does not make you more or less manly... being comfortable in your self and your own skin while doing it however does.

So in short I think we should not measure our worth as how manly, or womanly we are. Measure the quality of person you are, and that is enough. The measure of a man, or woman, to me is how they carry themselves, the respect they have for themselves and how they communicate that to the rest of us in word and action.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I know a few lads that can be great when I'm with them on their own.

However when there is a group of us and particularly if there are women are in the group they play to the audience, doing things that they consider "manly" but that really falls flat, particularly in front of women. They try to be too sexual, too aggressive and it doesn't look good. I'm surprised that they haven't noticed that this approach isn't really good.

My original post in this thread was phrased very poorly. I wasn't saying that there was or should be a a definition of what "makes a man" but more that there is a lot of men out there that for one reason or another feel the need to act a certain way, possibly because that's what they think is expected of them.

iptba

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the OP is right when he says the topic is pointless. It appears to be based on the archaic idea, which thankfully although still around is slowly receding, that there is any different of note between men and women in how they should act, or what their roles are in this world.

However the way our society is going today, there really is no difference between men and women except the general biological differences of reproduction. There is no set roles for any of them. With few exceptions, certainly not enough to be significant, we all have the same vote, we all work in the same jobs, we all do the same housework.

There is almost no role one can play that the other is precluded from in modern day. We can appeal to cultural norms to get our differences, such as “men wearing dresses” which has been brought up, but even then I do not think it counts. Look at Eddie Izzard. He happily wears dresses and make up. Do I consider him “less of a man” than me?

Hell no. The guy learned French and German in a period of time measured in weeks and had the courage to do full stage shows in those countries in those languages. He then went on to run 43 full length marathons in 51 consecutive days. By most measurements I can think of, mental and physical, he is much better a person than I.

Sticking on a pink shirt does not make you more or less manly... being comfortable in your self and your own skin while doing it however does.

So in short I think we should not measure our worth as how manly, or womanly we are. Measure the quality of person you are, and that is enough. The measure of a man, or woman, to me is how they carry themselves, the respect they have for themselves and how they communicate that to the rest of us in word and action.

This may make a good speech. However, I think in practice if many guys went out in a dress their manly-ness would be challenged. A "superstar" comedian may be treated differently from the rest of the population.

There are also lots of countries in the world (including in Europe) where men have to do military service and women don't; similarly with conscription.

omen80

I think the idea of a "real man" has changed throughout the ages. For instance, I saw a documentary about the spartans and apparently they used to rub each other with olive oil either before or after battle, I can't remember which. Now they were "real" men in their day!
If we heard of two guys rubbing each other with oil today, I don't think people would consider them very macho!

It's a load of bolony in my book, if you got something you can call a penis then you are a man!

Many men do go out in dresses. We even have specific words for them. I have not personally seen them being challanged. Drag Queens and the like have become part of our culture and it is rare I spend a night out in the city without seeing at least one walking down the road.

Whether you want to challange their "manly-ness" or not is your own concern. I personally think they are stronger and braver than I am for going out and looking in any way different from the "norm". Most people can not do that, and I do not just mean dresses. Standing out from the crowd in any way terrifies many... and guys spending a night out in the city in a dress are no different. Nor are they "superstar comedians".

I am unsure what military service has to do with anything though. The thread appears to be about what makes a man, not what governments expect of their citizens or how they choose to treat them differently. The point is not, therefore, that some countries only expect military service of men... but that in the countries that do not engage in such pointless segregation the women doing the same work do it just as well. Military service is not synonymous with "manly-ness" in any sense I am aware of.

iptba

Deleted User wrote: »

Many men do go out in dresses. We even have specific words for them. I have not personally seen them being challanged. Drag Queens and the like have become part of our culture and it is rare I spend a night out in the city without seeing at least one walking down the road.

Whether you want to challange their "manly-ness" or not is your own concern. I personally think they are stronger and braver than I am for going out and looking in any way different from the "norm". Most people can not do that, and I do not just mean dresses. Standing out from the crowd in any way terrifies many... and guys spending a night out in the city in a dress are no different.

I was not thinking about Drag Queens - also if one looks at the name "queens", it suggests it is seen as appearing female. I was thinking about in general, one is somewhat restricted in what clothes are seen as men's clothes. You can score your PC points and say that I or anyone else is biased if we say dresses are generally not seen as male attire while you are much more developed than us. But if 90+ (?)% of the population sees dresses as generally not male attire, one tends to have to fit into cultural norms.

Deleted User wrote:

I am unsure what military service has to do with anything though. The thread appears to be about what makes a man, not what governments expect of their citizens or how they choose to treat them differently.

You had said:

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the OP is right when he says the topic is pointless. It appears to be based on the archaic idea, which thankfully although still around is slowly receding, that there is any different of note between men and women in how they should act, or what their roles are in this world..

Deleted User wrote:

The point is not, therefore, that some countries only expect military service of men... but that in the countries that do not engage in such pointless segregation the women doing the same work do it just as well. Military service is not synonymous with "manly-ness" in any sense I am aware of.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Some countries may claim to be egalitarian e.g. some in Scandanavia but still only force men to do military service. Society clearly is dividing men and women up if it does this. For some reason, fighting for your country is a manly activity.

Galvasean

Nova Tender Sorbet wrote: »

I know a few lads that can be great when I'm with them on their own.

However when there is a group of us and particularly if there are women are in the group they play to the audience, doing things that they consider "manly" but that really falls flat, particularly in front of women. They try to be too sexual, too aggressive and it doesn't look good. I'm surprised that they haven't noticed that this approach isn't really good.

I know a few of them. Fooling nobody. Sadly, if they acted like themselves the ladies would be more interested.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Galvasean wrote: »

I know a few of them. Fooling nobody. Sadly, if they acted like themselves the ladies would be more interested.

Exactly, it's a bit cringe worthy to say the least.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

But if 90+ (?)% of the population sees dresses as generally not male attire, one tends to have to fit into cultural norms.

Then maybe you could do with re-reading my first post again as I specifically said in it that what I was addressing my points to was nothing to do with cultural norms.

iptba wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

What I am saying is that I am talking about what actually does "make a man" or not. Not what people think makes a man, such as some pleb at a desk in government who has decided only men should do military service.

The point in other words is that, regardless of whether we actually are segregating men and women or not (such as in your military example) there is - these days - rarely a justifiable reason for doing it. The roles and expectations of men and women are diluting and disappearing and we are recognising that, aside from obvious biological reproductive issues, there is little that one can do that the other is, or should be, precluded from.

As such the things that "make the man" could just as validly "make the woman" too. It just "makes the person". There is nothing "PC" about this nor is that what I am aiming for. It is just a statement of the reality I myself have spent years seeing for myself. If there is no distinct requirements, expectations or roles for men and women to fit into, that the other can not just as validly fit into, then I see no distinction between them on which to measure "manly-ness" or "womanly-ness".

And as the users directly above this post are saying - when some guy does have some archaic idea of what constitutes being a "real man" and he acts in that fashion... more often than not he just comes out looking silly.

parker kent

iptba wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Some countries may claim to be egalitarian e.g. some in Scandanavia but still only force men to do military service. Society clearly is dividing men and women up if it does this. For some reason, fighting for your country is a manly activity.

According to some person in an office somewhere. There are obvious examples of women in the US and UK army in Iraq that counter your argument.

What is manly changes due to time and location. Two men kissing on the cheek is not manly here. It is grand in other countries. Ditto men holding hands and other affectionate gestures.

Basically it is all a load of balls (pun intended!).

iptba

Deleted User wrote: »

Then maybe you could do with re-reading my first post again as I specifically said in it that what I was addressing my points to was nothing to do with cultural norms.

You said:

Deleted User wrote:

We can appeal to cultural norms to get our differences, such as “men wearing dresses” which has been brought up, but even then I do not think it counts. Look at Eddie Izzard. He happily wears dresses and make up. Do I consider him “less of a man” than me?

Just because you don't see somebody who wears a dress as less of a man doesn't mean other people will. Some people in society may think that not wearing clothes is the most natural way to be; however, enough people in society don't consider it natural for it to be a problem/restrictive and means one ends up wearing clothes.

parker kent

iptba wrote: »

You said:
Just because you don't see somebody who wears a dress as less of a man doesn't mean other people will. Some people in society may think that not wearing clothes is the most natural way to be; however, enough people in society don't consider it natural for it to be a problem/restrictive and means one ends up wearing clothes.

That is the point. Some people may think. The act itself is neither manly or girly. The view of society is what decides whether it is seen that way. And that view can change based on any number of different factors.

iptba

parker kent wrote: »

According to some person in an office somewhere.

It's a bit more than that: governments haven't changed it. Court rulings in Germany for example have upheld it that it is acceptable for men to have to do national service but not women.

parker kent wrote: »

There are obvious examples of women in the US and UK army in Iraq that counter your argument.

In lots of countries, men and women can be in paid positions in the military but:
(i) women don't have to do military service
(ii) women are not put in some positions on the front line, etc.

Also, even in the US,

the Selective Service System remains in place as a contingency plan; men between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register so that a draft can be readily resumed if needed.

(ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States )

iptba

iptba wrote: »

Just because you don't see somebody who wears a dress as less of a man doesn't mean other people will.

I am guessing you meant "won't" at the end there. Was a bit confused for a moment.

I never claimed that there will be no other people who view them that way. Of course there will be. You are now replying to a position I never actually said I hold.

What I am saying is that if they choose to view the guy that way, that is their issue not mine and there is no justifiable reason for their view that I know of. That is the difference. They may see that man as "less of a man" but is there any justifiable reason for seeing it that way? That is the crux of my point.

In fact - as I pointed out - being willing to overcome the phobia most of us have of being noticed and to choose to stand out of the crowd in fact makes people more of a person in my eyes, not less. That view I can justify, because it is a very brave thing to do and many of us are too scared to do anything that makes us stand out.

I think we are talking past each other. You are talking about, and giving examples of, where people actually are treating men and women differently. I am not talking about that, but about whether the people who are doing it, and you are 100% right that they are, actually have justifiable reason for doing so these days. As such we are technically having two different conversations between us.

parker kent

iptba wrote: »

It's a bit more than that: governments haven't changed it. Court rulings in Germany for example have upheld it that it is acceptable for men to have to do national service but not women.

In lots of countries, men and women can be in paid positions in the military but:
(i) women don't have to do military service
(ii) women are not put in some positions on the front line, etc.

Also, even in the US,
(ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States )

I don't really want to get into specific arguments about countries as it has nothing to do with my point. Which is a simple one, what is considered manly changes based on location, time and experience.

All you have posted is further proof of my points. Society perpetuates these ideas. All they are some peoples thoughts and actions.

iptba

parker kent wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Just because you don't see somebody who wears a dress as less of a man doesn't mean other people will. Some people in society may think that not wearing clothes is the most natural way to be; however, enough people in society don't consider it natural for it to be a problem/restrictive and means one ends up wearing clothes.

That is the point. Some people may think. The act itself is neither manly or girly. The view of society is what decides whether it is seen that way. And that view can change based on any number of different factors.

But often one is interested in the here and now.

Also, potentially people can believe anything in the future.
That doesn't mean that people will believe it anytime soon.
And in the meantime there are effectively restrictions just as currently there are restrictions in terms of walking around naked e.g. a man turning up on a date with a woman when he is wearing a dress - enough women will currently see it as not manly (I guess) for it to be a problem; a man might on average be better choosing different attire at this moment in time and we don't know if that attitude will change anytime soon. Potentially, it could but we don't know that it will.

In general, what is considered "manly" perhaps could be defined at least partly by what women find attractive in a mate. It is far from definite that what women find attractive in a mate is purely "sociological" and is without restriction in terms of how it can change in time.

parker kent wrote: »

Which is a simple one, what is considered manly changes based on location, time and experience.

All you have posted is further proof of my points. Society perpetuates these ideas. All they are some peoples thoughts and actions.

I am inclined to believe that there are bounds on what is or will be considered manly. Probably based at least partly on what women see as attractive in a mate (apologies for the repeat of that point). So I'm inclined to believe that, for example, bursting into tears and cowering behind a rock when faced with a threat or something scary (perhaps summarised as being the opposite of brave) is unlikely to be considered manly, even in the future.

parker kent

iptba wrote: »

So I'm inclined to believe that, for example, bursting into tears and cowering behind a rock when faced with a threat or something scary (perhaps summarised as being the opposite of brave) is unlikely to be considered manly, even in the future.

Did I wake up in 2011BC?

Anyway, I haven't denied there are norms of what is manly, so there is no need to argue otherwise. Attraction is also open to norms too and is a whole other can of worms anyway.

iptba

parker kent wrote: »

Anyway, I haven't denied there are norms of what is manly, so there is no need to argue otherwise.

You said things like:

I don't buy into anything being necessarily manly.

and

What is manly changes due to time and location.

There is no need for you to argue of course. I'm just trying to develop the discussion by seeing if one can be more specific.

Attraction is also open to norms too and is a whole other can of worms anyway.

Who says it's a "can of worms" rather than simply a continuation of the discussion about manly-ness.

L31mr0d

I think more discussion needs to go into how our genetics affect the way we act. I mean even in the animal kingdom, sexes assume roles. What is the role of a man untethered by societal norms and standards?

I've been back-country camping a lot, with a lot of people, in the past year, and gender roles tend to always come to the forefront. The men will universally light and maintain the fire. The women will prepare the meals, unless it is meat, then the men will tend to it.

Men tend to construct the shelters with the aid of their partners, but the women tend to organize and sort the sleeping arrangements inside them.

No discussion has ever gone into this, and it appears universally accepted. It only became apparent to me as I've been watching through all the series from Les Stroud and Ray Mears recently and these remote tribes on all 4 corners of the planet tend to form the same societal structures for living which I do when the trappings of modern society have been removed and you only need concern yourself with food, water, safety and shelter.

Dravokivich

why say what makes a man when the personal qualities are equally as important to be portrayed by women also?

deirdre_dub

koth wrote: »

just wondering how you define sex then?

It depends on whether it is good sex or bad sex.

I always assumed it was down to chromosomes.

Righty. Here we go.

First of all, let's use the word "gender", not "sex". With me so far?

There are many different kinds of gender. There is the chromosomal gender that everyone talks about. However, even chromosomal gender isn't black-and-white. There is the case mentioned in the post above where an XY woman gives birth to an XY daughter. There are also people who are XXY and XXYY and all sorts of other combinations. So the lesson here is that chromosomal gender isn't a binary, and just because you are XY doesn't actually mean that the rest of you is male. Usually, however, it does, but not always.

Then there is this gender identity thing that us trans folk are always talking about. To be honest, I don't think we do a good job of talking about it, mostly because it is such a difficult thing to find the right words for. Science seems to be settling on the idea of something called "brain sex" (brain gender, actually :rolleyes:), in which there are (broadly speaking) two different kinds of brain. Us transgender folk have the wrong brain for the body we are in (or the wrong body for the brain that holds our identity).

Then there is what you might call your social gender. As a trans person, my biggest challenge is correcting my social gender. There are a whole lot of societal rules, norms and expectations, as well as rights and privileges, that are different for men and for women. Even if your gender identity is (e.g.) male, your male social gender might not be a good fit to who you actually are as a man. For instance, the male social thing of not being supposed to show certain "feminine" emotions might cause you distress as a man if showing those emotions is actually something that you need to do as a man. Which isn't to say that your need to show those emotions is an indicator of gender identity problems - the social gender constructs have evolved over a long period of time and, like most constructs, seem to be a poor fit to most of the people who are their subjects. At least, that's the way it seems to me - there seem to be very few people who say "I like everything about being a man/woman".

Kevin Duffy

Now this is a man http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/apr/02/i-am-a-90-year-old-bodybuilder

HugoDrax

IF

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream---and not make dreams your master;
If you can think---and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:.
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build'em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings---nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And---which is more---you'll be a Man, my son!

Rudyard Kipling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlfnm9gV52w