"Man up"

yawha

Inspired by a comment in another thread.

Is it ever acceptable to tell someone to "man up"? Why/why not?

I think that in general, its use, and the attitudes surrounding its use, perpetuates the enforcement of the stereotypical male gender role, and all the expectations and connotations that go with that.

helimachoptor

OF course... however you are right its too often used in a violent way..
I man up by cycling that extra 10 or 15K through the pain barrier etc

MadsL

I prefer "drink some concrete and harden the fck up!".

Smcgie

Anyone wearing skinny jeans should be hit with a wet fish and told to man up.

Renn

riveratom

yawha wrote: »

I think that in general, its use, and the attitudes surrounding its use, perpetuates the enforcement of the stereotypical male gender role, and all the expectations and connotations that go with that.

Is this a girl's realllly long-winded way of saying that men should be men?

If you're not a girl, I'm sorry

opinion guy

yawha wrote: »

Inspired by a comment in another thread.

Is it ever acceptable to tell someone to "man up"? Why/why not?

I think that in general, its use, and the attitudes surrounding its use, perpetuates the enforcement of the stereotypical male gender role, and all the expectations and connotations that go with that.

I don't mind that too much.

I greatly dislike the more crude version.....grow a pair of balls

py2006

I don't like the way the phrase is thrown at men if they have a complaint or feel aggrieved by something or indeed try to talk about an abusive situation.

Dravokivich

I've only ever used it and seen it used as a joke, with the intent clearly understood as that.

entropi

Dravokivich wrote: »

I've only ever used it and seen it used as a joke, with the intent clearly understood as that.

This.

I would only use it while there'd be some of us having the craic. There would be no element to it, other than in a joking manner that we'd all find funny.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

I've only ever used it and seen it used as a joke, with the intent clearly understood as that.

I have to admit I've used it seriously. It was self-directed though, Goddamn Marley and Me.

Maguined

I have used it both jokingly and seriously.

It's use like all language depends on the context.

When friends are being overly negative and defeatist I have told them to man up just as if my friends are being overly aggressive or nervous I have told them to calm down.

CJ_

Someone said it to be before, because I didn't want to drink!! Fcuk off! :mad:

JamJamJamJam

I guess it could be okay if you mean something like "Grow up, be mature - like an adult man". I don't think it's fair to use it in the context of a person being anxious, cautious, emotional, even fashionable... The whole "be manly, don't be a little girl" idea probably plays a part in depression in a lot of men, when they feel they can't express their concerns or emotions. Sure it can be used in a lighthearted context but... what yawha said :P

ongarboy

Agreed, it really is (or should be) only used in light hearted situations in the same vain as (don't be a big girl's blouse). eg if you screamed when you saw a spider sort of situation.

It would be inappropriate to say it to someone breaking down in tears over some serious anxiety or stressful encounter they are going through.

cade

yawha wrote: »

Is it ever acceptable to tell someone to "man up"? Why/why not?

I don't like it and would never use it myself though I could say the same about myself and a number of other ridiculous phrases. My friends girlfriend and all her friends use it amongst themselves while referrring to each other as 'woman', so the phrase becomes "man up, woman". Silly phrases like this are excuses for people who won't learn to express themselves using a wider vocabulary.

yawha wrote: »

I think that in general, its use, and the attitudes surrounding its use, perpetuates the enforcement of the stereotypical male gender role, and all the expectations and connotations that go with that.

Agreed. On a slightly related note, I overheard a middle age woman speaking a few weeks ago who was recounting a night when a man threatened her with a broken bottle, according to her she stood firm and told the man "if you're going to threaten me with that then you better be man enough to use it". I really hate this whole mentality that to become an adult male, a Man, you must have within you the inherent ability to instigate violence.

I encountered it also when I was in my teens working in a bar and a late twenties barman was trying to get me to start smoking. He offered, I declined, he offered again along with the phrase "go on, be a man".

I'd much prefer that instead of being a Man or Woman people instead conform to the idea of being an Adult, with the connotations that the individual is level headed, has the ability to raise a child properly should they so choose, takes responsibility for their own actions and their consequences.

Maguined

cade wrote: »

Agreed. On a slightly related note, I overheard a middle age woman speaking a few weeks ago who was recounting a night when a man threatened her with a broken bottle, according to her she stood firm and told the man "if you're going to threaten me with that then you better be man enough to use it". I really hate this whole mentality that to become an adult male, a Man, you must have within you the inherent ability to instigate violence.

I don't see this as having the inherent ability to instigate violence more of having the courage of your convictions. Don't threaten to do something without having the conviction to follow through and this is repeated in other common sayings:

Put your money where your mouth it.
You talk the talk but do you walk the walk.
His bark is worse than his bite.

Misty Chaos

I hate that bloody phrase!

I also dislike the fact that people use it to shut down an argument where it's clear they are in the wrong. ' Grow up, be a man! ' ' Are you a man or a mouse!? '

To me, it equates to suppressing your true feelings and desires and becoming emotionless all the for the sake of conforming to some stereotype. That sounds like a miserable existence to me so I don't buy it.

Don't get me wrong - we should all grow up - I don't believe in growing old - something that I believe the whole pressure on males to ' be a man ' only exasperates.

Also don't like the fact that it's associated with violence either.

Just look at my current signature for example - not very ' manly ' at all ( I play the 2 characters in video games I own. ) I'm actually a bit paranoid at times on enabling it outside of the fighting games forum in case some fool gives me abuse it for it ( though then again, I can ignore it and report them. ) Hell, even my username isn't very manly at all either!

Those 2 things don't make me any less male, just different and I like that, personally.

DaveNoCheese

Master of Nothing wrote: »

Dravokivich wrote: »

I've only ever used it and seen it used as a joke, with the intent clearly understood as that.

This.

I would only use it while there'd be some of us having the craic. There would be no element to it, other than in a joking manner that we'd all find funny.

The above two examples. Have only ever used it or heard it been used in a jokingly manner and have no issue with it or the other versions, e.g. 'grow a pair' and 'will your balls ever drop?'.

In my opinion all are fine once in a group of friends or as a joke and if ye don't agree, then man up and deal with it :pac:

Maguined

Misty Chaos wrote: »

Also don't like the fact that it's associated with violence either.

What associates it with violence more so than any other phrase could be used in a violent context?

iptba

Not sure if it was the same thing or not, but a male friend posted that his dad had died on Facebook recently and then two people (I know) posted "be strong". I didn't find that that supportive: it seemed to be basically telling him "don't be weak". He hadn't even been venting - he simply posted a link to the death notice.

ETA: I found the other parts of their (very brief) messages supportive.

Panthro

iptba wrote: »

Not sure if it was the same thing or not, but a male friend posted that his dad had died on Facebook recently and then two people (I know) posted "be strong". I didn't find that that supportive: it seemed to be basically telling him "don't be weak". He hadn't even been venting - he simply posted a link to the death notice.

If a male/female friend of mine wrote "be strong" in the circumstances you refer to, I'd take it as it meant to be taken, someone trying to be supportive.
I genuinely don't see how it could be construed as "don't be weak".

iptba

Panthro wrote: »

If a male/female friend of mine wrote "be strong" in the circumstances you refer to, I'd take it as it meant to be taken, someone trying to be supportive.

Yes, I would see it as a sign of somebody trying to be supportive (ETA: i.e. the whole message and making the effort to comment, not this bit necessarily)

Panthro wrote: »

I genuinely don't see how it could be construed as "don't be weak".

So you can't see how "be strong" be construed as "don't be weak", fair enough, but I think it could be as they're pretty synonymous. I think somebody should be allowed be as upset as they want to be if somebody dies. I don't think a man should be afraid of crying (say) in such a circumstance, but I think men can feel afraid to cry and can pass this feeling on to others. The pressure not to cry comes from somewhere. And once it's out there, it's probably best to be extra careful with the words one chooses (i.e. even if it was never the intention to pass on such an attitude).

People can try to be helpful, but it doesn't mean they do it well. I think some people try to toughen boys/males for their own good (i.e. it's a tough world out there): whether it's the right thing to do, is another question.

Elvis_Presley

Sorry, had to be posted!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EY7lYRneHc

Panthro

iptba wrote: »

I didn't find that that supportive: it seemed to be basically telling him "don't be weak".

iptba wrote: »

Yes, I would see it as a sign of somebody trying to be supportive.

iptba wrote: »

ETA: just to clarify: I accept they were trying to being supportive,

iptba wrote: »

each had said something and then said "be strong" which I thought was unnecessary.

So just to clarify, you didn't find them to be supportive when they wrote "be strong" you feel they were basically telling him "don't be weak".
Yet, at the same time, you accept that they were trying to be supportive when they wrote "be strong".
But at the same time, you feel that their use of "be strong" was in this instance, unnecessary?

Riiiiight...Confused? I know I am.

iptba

Panthro wrote: »

So just to clarify, you didn't find them to be supportive when they wrote "be strong" you feel they were basically telling him "don't be weak".
Yet, at the same time, you accept that they were trying to be supportive when they wrote "be strong".
But at the same time, you feel that their use of "be strong" was in this instance, unnecessary?

Riiiiight...Confused? I know I am.

Yes, you are right that I probably should have used different adjectives to express what I was trying to say. I might go back and edit it now (ETA: Ok, I didn't want to edit too much to break the flow - I just changed the bit I added on to the first message).

My point was that while I felt they were commiserating with the person on the death by writing, and in the first part of the message, I thought the "be strong" bit was unnecessary (ETA: And not necessarily supportive).

There is pressure on men not to cry, I believe. I believe men should be as free to be upset as they want to be. Such words, whether intentional or otherwise, might communicate pressure not to cry and be upset, or remind the bereaved person of this pressure.

Basically, I am trying to bring up the issue of pressure on men not to be upset and cry because of a bereavement, or other distressing circumstance. Whether this is the best example, perhaps not.

opinion guy

iptba wrote: »

There is pressure on men not to cry, I believe. I believe men should be as free to be upset as they want to be. Such words, whether intentional or otherwise, might communicate pressure not to cry and be upset, or remind the bereaved person of this pressure.

It actually bothers me when people say this. I rarely cry. Not because I can't or won't express my emotions - I do that plenty. I physically simply don't like crying. Its messy puffy, runny, unpleasantness. No thanks

Panthro

iptba wrote: »

My point was that while I felt they were commiserating with the person on the death by writing, and in the first part of the message, I thought the "be strong" bit was unnecessary.

Well then, What was written in the first part of their message then?
Because all I have to go by so far is that there was a death of a loved one, and friends of a person close to the deceased used the term "be strong" at some point in a message, a term which to my mind anyways, can only be viewed as an expression of support during a difficult time.

Panthro

iptba wrote: »

Basically, I am trying to bring up the issue of pressure on men not to be upset and cry because of a bereavement, or other distressing circumstance. Whether this is the best example, perhaps not.

If that's the case, it's a different subject to this thread.

ongarboy

iptba wrote: »

Yes, you are right that I probably should have used different adjectives to express what I was trying to say. I might go back and edit it now.

My point was that while I felt they were commiserating with the person on the death by writing, and in the first part of the message, I thought the "be strong" bit was unnecessary.

There is pressure on men not to cry, I believe. I believe men should be as free to be upset as they want to be. Such words, whether intentional or otherwise, might communicate pressure not to cry and be upset, or remind the bereaved person of this pressure.

No, I wouldn't take "be strong" to mean "don't be weak" either. Saying be strong means you hope they have the strength to cope and/or overcome their burden. Strength can actually mean having the courage to let it all out (either through openly grieving, crying etc) or having the courage to seek the help of others. It doen't mean keep a stoic Victorian stiff upper lip and surpress all emotions.

I think it's dangerous trying to take words too literally otherwise one could take offence in practically any word out there. Likewise with using the phrase "man up" or "be a man". They're just phrases, if the context and tone of when and how they are used is meant to be derogatory or hurtful, then that's the genuine problem not the words themselves.

iptba

Panthro wrote: »

Well then, What was written in the first part of their message then?
Because all I have to go by so far is that there was a death of a loved one, and friends of a person close to the deceased used the term "be strong" at some point in a message, a term which to my mind anyways, can only be viewed as an expression of support during a difficult time.

I don't want to copy what they said and intentify anyone.

I have tried to explain why I think "be strong" may be an example of men being discouraged from crying and being upset. You clearly disagree. I think that men feel pressure not to cry or be upset. They pick it up from somewhere. So, even if one's intention is not to communicate such a thing, I think being sensitive with words is useful.

iptba

Panthro wrote: »

If that's the case, it's a different subject to this thread.

Ok, started a new thread on it: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056747945

Galvasean

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to admit I've used it seriously. It was self-directed though, Goddamn Marley and Me.

Not a damn thing wrong with that.

*sheds a tear*

DaveNoCheese

Galvasean wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to admit I've used it seriously. It was self-directed though, Goddamn Marley and Me.

Not a damn thing wrong with that.

*sheds a tear*

Hear hear!!

yawha

ongarboy wrote: »

I think it's dangerous trying to take words too literally otherwise one could take offence in practically any word out there. Likewise with using the phrase "man up" or "be a man". They're just phrases, if the context and tone of when and how they are used is meant to be derogatory or hurtful, then that's the genuine problem not the words themselves.

I think it's equally dangerous to underestimate the power of words.

Even when only used in a joking context, and without any malicious intent, phrases can very often normalise attitudes towards certain issues.

Maguined

yawha wrote: »

I think it's equally dangerous to underestimate the power of words.

Even when only used in a joking context, and without any malicious intent, phrases can very often normalise attitudes towards certain issues.

I completely and utterly disagree with you. I do not for one second believe that a joking context normalises attitudes towards certain issues. All issues are always dependent upon the specific context.

I know plenty of people that would regularly make sexist/racist/homophobic jokes however they are in no ways sexist/racist/homophobic in the slightest. Myself included believe that the concept of genuinely believing in any of the above is so bizarre and alien to our way of thinking that it is funny and hence worth laughing over.

yawha

Of course merely making a sexist/racist/homophobic joke doesn't make someone any of those things.

However, jokes like these should be used sparingly, IMO. You can't assume everyone is as egalitarian and progressive thinking as you are. There are people out there who genuinely are sexist, racist or homophobic, and hearing jokes like these reinforces their prejudice. There are people out there who haven't thought about these things, are easily influenced, and would not understand that a joke was about the absurdity of an attitude or prejudice, but actually mocking a group of people. And finally, there are members of these groups who have experienced first hand real prejudice/discrimination, and jokes can act as triggers for very negative feelings.

And the thing is, these kinds of people are everywhere, and you never know what's going on in someone's head or what past experiences they've had.

grover_green

while their is a time and a place for every comment

im of the view that traditional ideas , views and roles were often the best way , some people view all traditional ideas and roles as bad and in need of reform , so men must be feminised , made to open up about everything that is bothering them etc , im of the view that this can often do more harm than good

xDramaxQueenx

I tell myself to man up ALL the time! For me, it generally needs to be said when I start becoming whiney and bratty and sulky for no reason. Man. Up.

iptba

xDramaxQueenx wrote: »

I tell myself to man up ALL the time! For me, it generally needs to be said when I start becoming whiney and bratty and sulky for no reason. Man. Up.

So that's how it could be interpreted if somebody said it to somebody else i.e. "don't be whiney and bratty and sulky for no reason".

I think there's a big difference between talking to oneself in that way and talking to others - I think people can motivate themselves whatever way they like, but we wouldn't normally talk like that to others.

Is there an equivalent phrase for women (including in jokes/"jokes")?

xDramaxQueenx

I would never tell somebody else to man up. Its just an expression i use to talk myself into doing things I dont want to do.

Maguined

yawha wrote: »

Of course merely making a sexist/racist/homophobic joke doesn't make someone any of those things.

However, jokes like these should be used sparingly, IMO. You can't assume everyone is as egalitarian and progressive thinking as you are. There are people out there who genuinely are sexist, racist or homophobic, and hearing jokes like these reinforces their prejudice. There are people out there who haven't thought about these things, are easily influenced, and would not understand that a joke was about the absurdity of an attitude or prejudice, but actually mocking a group of people. And finally, there are members of these groups who have experienced first hand real prejudice/discrimination, and jokes can act as triggers for very negative feelings.

And the thing is, these kinds of people are everywhere, and you never know what's going on in someone's head or what past experiences they've had.

I have to respectfully disagree with you again. I do not alter my behaviour on the basis that a few idiots out there who cannot determine the absurdity of racism/sexism/homphobia for themselves and instead rely upon the influences of those around them. If someone is such a sheep they will find whatever excuse they want regardless of my own personal limitation on such jokes.

I agree somewhat with your second point. People who have experienced such negative discrimination might have negative feelings upon hearing such a joke however most of my friends generally share the same belief as I do in that it is how something is intended that is important. All my friends know we each like and respect each other so we can joke about things all we want as we mean no offense, we would also have the same belief that you have to laugh off any negative experiences you encounter in life otherwise such negativity can eat you up for years.

The Corinthian

I don't tend to agree with yawha on gender related topics, but will largely have to here.

Terms such as "be a man" or "man up" are designed to shame the (male) target into conforming to certain, often against their own interests, stereotypes about men's role in society.

It's been around for a long time in one shape of other; the Romans have very defined views of what it meant to be a man and chivalry was based entirely on chauvinistic codes of conduct that if you failed to live up to made you 'dishonourable'. More recently also, it was used to great effect by women giving civilian men white flowers as a sign of their cowardice during World War I, if they didn't sign up, or the accusations of cowardice that men who survived the Titanic disaster had to face for the rest of their lives - simply for surviving.

Today it is often used as a general term invoking courage, often in levity; especially where it comes to drinking or sport.

However, if you search how it's used even here and filter out the more light hearted or throwaway examples, instead focusing on when it is used as a means to 'shame' a man into certain behaviour, you'll tend to find a recurring pattern:

• Controlling emotion, especially crying.
• Providing for one's wife and/or children.
• To use violence in defending one's self, or one's girlfriend/wife.
• As an attack against fathers who don't want to be fathers.
• To stand up against bullying (workplace, marriage, etc) - become more assertive, aggressive or even physical.
• Paying on dates.

If you look at these, you'll tend to find that they tend to be calls often (but not always) to behave in a self destructive manner; to act against your own interests because it is expected for a man to do so - if he is a real man.

This philosophy is based upon the fact that men in a patriarchal society had to pay for their privileged position. But the World has changed because largely women began to question their position and role, yet men did not.

So when you hear someone tell you to 'man up' in a manner that lends itself to such self sacrifice, what you're hearing is a fantasy; a deluded belief that the World has not changed in the last century, by men (and women) who are either blind (or selectively so) to that reality.

grover_green

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't tend to agree with yawha on gender related topics, but will largely have to here.

Terms such as "be a man" or "man up" are designed to shame the (male) target into conforming to certain, often against their own interests, stereotypes about men's role in society.

It's been around for a long time in one shape of other; the Romans have very defined views of what it meant to be a man and chivalry was based entirely on chauvinistic codes of conduct that if you failed to live up to made you 'dishonourable'. More recently also, it was used to great effect by women giving civilian men white flowers as a sign of their cowardice during World War I, if they didn't sign up, or the accusations of cowardice that men who survived the Titanic disaster had to face for the rest of their lives - simply for surviving.

Today it is often used as a general term invoking courage, often in levity; especially where it comes to drinking or sport.


However, if you search how it's used even here and filter out the more light hearted or throwaway examples, instead focusing on when it is used as a means to 'shame' a man into certain behaviour, you'll tend to find a recurring pattern:

• Controlling emotion, especially crying.
• Providing for one's wife and/or children.
• To use violence in defending one's self, or one's girlfriend/wife.
• As an attack against fathers who don't want to be fathers.
• To stand up against bullying (workplace, marriage, etc) - become more assertive, aggressive or even physical.
• Paying on dates.

If you look at these, you'll tend to find that they tend to be calls often (but not always) to behave in a self destructive manner; to act against your own interests because it is expected for a man to do so - if he is a real man.

This philosophy is based upon the fact that men in a patriarchal society had to pay for their privileged position. But the World has changed because largely women began to question their position and role, yet men did not.

So when you hear someone tell you to 'man up' in a manner that lends itself to such self sacrifice, what you're hearing is a fantasy; a deluded belief that the World has not changed in the last century, by men (and women) who are either blind (or selectively so) to that reality.

change is always inevitable but like i said earlier , sometimes the old ways were the best ways , i dont buy into this pc liberal idea that gender is a societal construct , im all for equal opportunity between men and women in the workplace etc but im firmly against the idea of taking a hatchet to traditional notions of masculinity like is so popular nowadays , i see this as incredibly dangerous and a huge contributor to male suicide , young males have an identity crisis , if they horse around as ten year olds in the school yard , they are dragged to some therapist who diagnoses them with some syndrome or another , the pathologising of the male sex is an utterly corrosive present day phenomenon in the west and one which is cheered on by our pc liberal intelegensia

eventually a backlash will arrive

The Corinthian

grover_green wrote: »

change is always inevitable but like i said earlier , sometimes the old ways were the best ways , i dont buy into this pc liberal idea that gender is a societal construct

There are certainly biological and anthropological origins to gender roles, but ultimately much of it is demonstrably societal. This can be shown clearly in the shift from egalitarian or even matriarchal structures to patriarchal ones with the advent of agriculture and urbanization.

Even in the modern context, many instincts that may explain gender roles, no longer make sense any more; the division of risk (men risk through war, women through childbirth) no longer applies since the latter is no longer a serious risk in modern society.

That's the evidence ultimately. That you don't buy into it doesn't change that, and while there may arguably be space for gender roles still, what we're clinging to are grossly out of date.

And this is from someone who I doubt many here would regard as PC.

i see this as incredibly dangerous and a huge contributor to male suicide , young males have an identity crisis

This is not because old notions of masculinity have been abandoned, but in many respects because they have not and are no longer relevant or achievable in modern society and we've not tried to find a new identity to replace them.

This is not to say that we should all become metrosexuals who will cry during romantic films and use skin care products, however we do have to seriously question what relevance of many of the traditional truths.

For example does it make sense that a man provide for his wife any more? Certainly if someone is stuck at home caring for a child, there's need for someone to do that, but why should it be the wife? Why do we still think that a man living off his wife is a parasite, while the reverse is acceptable?

Perhaps the old ways were the best ways, but that's past tense. And until we look at where we are dispassionately, as men, and accept this, we're still going to be trapped in a fantasy where our role is one that no longer exists.

eventually a backlash will arrive

Almost certainly, although it is more likely to be fuelled by the growing realization that the 'old ways' are an illusion that is allowing men to be increasingly being exploited and disenfranchised.

Piliger

There's a lot of BS floating around here. I have often heard and used the phrase Man up to women as well as men.

All of these phrases and manner of speaking are completely context-driven and applying disproportionate analysis contributes nothing. For example a few months ago I was talking with my sister in law and discussing her frustration at her sister's continual demands on her to help her with her small business for free. I told her that really she needed to man up to her and take a stand. When my son was 13 and getting bullied at school I would never had told him to Man Up to the bullies. I went to the Head and they were suspended. Context context context.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

Context context context.

I agree - much of the time this is the case. However, you will often see it used as a 'shaming' tactic in discussions too. I believe it is when it is used in this manner that we're discussing.

yawha

I think the fact that it is a gendered term makes it a little problematic, even in a perfectly acceptable context. Ultimately, it still comes from the assumption that being strong and not showing weakness is inherently a male trait.

The argument against this, of course, is that the etymology of the phrase doesn't matter, and that use of it doesn't mean someone agrees with this assumption, nor does it influence anyone in any way.

I'm not so sure myself. I think the sanitization of language is often taken too far, but certain terms, like this one, do bug me a bit due to their connotations.

Wibbs

I sometimes use it or it's equivalent, or the overall sentiment(as in cop on/deal with it FFS), both to myself and others. When? In situations where I or someone else is being a first world problem whiner and it's become consistent, self involved, self defeating and bloody irritating to them and the group. And yes there are first world problems, lots of them and yes IMHO and IME I've noted there are more examples of men* whining about same.








*I'd be of the same mind and actions with regard to women displaying the behaviour consistently.

iptba

Wibbs wrote: »

I sometimes use it or it's equivalent, or the overall sentiment(as in cop on/deal with it FFS), both to myself and others. When? In situations where I or someone else is being a first world problem whiner and it's become consistent, self involved, self defeating and bloody irritating to them and the group.

How do people react? It seems a bit like "shut up" with added barb?

minidazzler

I would use the phrase regularly enough.

If someone is being, as said above, defeatist without even trying I tell the to man up.

I'd a friend go on about a girl he liked for ages, saying how she wouldn't want him and all that but he couldn't do anything because he might lose the friendship. I actually went a bit mad at him to tell him "Man the fcuk up and take a shot, sitting on the fence is a b1tch move and won't make you happy to watch her with other guys, so grow a pair of balls and take a shot". Those are pretty much the exact words I shouted at him one night when out for a couple of pints. He didn't talk to me for a week, when he did he had taken the shot, gotten a date and realised they didn't work.


The phrase to me has it's uses, but it's used in a lot of contexts where it shouldn't be.