"Man up"

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.

the_syco

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.

It has never happened, but if a woman ever told me to "man up", I'd be tempted to respond with "go into the kitchen and make me a sandwich, .....", as anytime I've seen someone say it it's usually as the man is showing some feelings.

But sometimes, if the context is correct, you can use it, but only really in a light-hearted way.

minidazzler

the_syco wrote: »

But sometimes, if the context is correct, you can use it, but only really in a light-hearted way.

I'd agree about it being a contextual thing, but it doesn't have to be lighthearted.

If someone is won't even try something for fear of failure, it's perfectly reasonable to tell them to man up or something to that effect. Not if it's something they don't want to do, but something they do want but are afraid or whatever else to make the moves to get it.

At the same time, telling a man who is having a breakdown to man up is not OK by any manner of means.

Though telling a guy who cries about every little thing to stop, and shut up, is something I have done and would do again. In the last case it was because he got a flat tyre and couldn't find the spare, he thought he didn't have one and was stranded. to me, that's a situation where you deal with the problem, not cry about it.

Wibbs

iptba wrote: »

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

When it's reached that point I'm also at the point where I care little enough for their reaction TBH. They've become a first world problem whinger and I don't need to be listening to it. When half the world goes to bed with an empty belly and that's the least of it for many millions, some bloke whinging day after day over non issues in the greater scheme of things irritates the fcuk out of me. Reactions vary. Some get angry, but realise why it was said, some clam up and some whine even more. The latter get scraped out of my life PDQ.

minidazzler wrote:

Though telling a guy who cries about every little thing to stop, and shut up, is something I have done and would do again. In the last case it was because he got a flat tyre and couldn't find the spare, he thought he didn't have one and was stranded. to me, that's a situation where you deal with the problem, not cry about it.

+1000 Perfect example of a non issue. Unless he was on the way to an emergency. An actual emergency. Even then you deal with the problem and it's not as if he's stuck 300 miles into the Australian outback.

minidazzler

Wibbs wrote: »

+1000 Perfect example of a non issue. Unless he was on the way to an emergency. An actual emergency. Even then you deal with the problem and it's not as if he's stuck 300 miles into the Australian outback.

Of all places we were just outside Mallow, we live in Cork City...

I do not see crying as weakness in and of itself, I do see people who break down at little things as being weak of character. It's like they have never had to put up with sh1t in their lives so when something bad comes along they cannot handle it at all. I do think it's something related to how they either never ran into problems when they were younger or their parents took care of it for them.

Chris Titus had something fun to say on it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUWLJ4cH3zk


For those who might take me up wrong. A Man having a true breakdown from some major revelation in his life gets nothing but support from me. A man who can't handle a little stressful situation and is constantly breaking down about little things, gets told to man the fcuk up and sort it out. I think it's fair, some may disagree, but then again, they might possibly be people who fall into the latter camp.

iptba

I think people can sometimes whine and moan as they have run out of things to talk about. Not sure it's a particularly male problem.

The Corinthian

yawha wrote: »

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.

I should have guessed that your greatest objection to the term would likely be related to how it affects women... :rolleyes:

Wibbs

minidazzler wrote: »

For those who might take me up wrong. A Man having a true breakdown from some major revelation in his life gets nothing but support from me. A man who can't handle a little stressful situation and is constantly breaking down about little things, gets told to man the fcuk up and sort it out. I think it's fair, some may disagree, but then again, they might possibly be people who fall into the latter camp.

This in a nutshell. Now I rarely actually say it or it's equivalent. I'd have to be cornered as it were. I just try to avoid people(of both genders*) who exhibit such a personality.



*An ex of mine was like this. With her There. Was. Always. A. Fuc.... Whinge. Over. Something. More fool me for hanging around, but I was younger and she was pretty good looking so was swayed by that at the time. Her brother was the exact bloody same. I don't think they suffered an actual problem worthy of a whinge in their lives, so never learned much perspective and approached every issue as worthy of emotional collapse.

yawha

The Corinthian wrote: »

yawha wrote: »

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.

I should have guessed that your greatest objection to the term would likely be related to how it affects women... :rolleyes:

How on earth did you get that from what I wrote? Between this and you comments about me in the feedback thread, you really need to work on not forming preconceptions about people's opinions or "agendas" based on a handful of interactions.

In this instance, the expectation on men not to show weakness and the pressure that comes with that was what i was talking about. Not really sure where there's a female issue in there.

yawha

minidazzler wrote: »

Though telling a guy who cries about every little thing to stop, and shut up, is something I have done and would do again. In the last case it was because he got a flat tyre and couldn't find the spare, he thought he didn't have one and was stranded. to me, that's a situation where you deal with the problem, not cry about it.

I kinda disagree. People have different emotional reactions to things and deal with things differently. Also, crying and dealing with a situation are not mutually exclusive. Crying and being rational are not mutually exclusive. I would fully agree that if in this situation he was just giving up, as if it were the end of the world, and not doing anything to deal with what had happened, he should really deal with it better, but I don't see anything wrong with crying/showing his emotions in this instance.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that whinging about stupid first world problems, and the simple act of crying/showing emotion when something bad happens can be completely different things.

minidazzler

yawha wrote: »

I kinda disagree. People have different emotional reactions to things and deal with things differently. Also, crying and dealing with a situation are not mutually exclusive. Crying and being rational are not mutually exclusive. I would fully agree that if in this situation he was just giving up, as if it were the end of the world, and not doing anything to deal with what had happened, he should really deal with it better, but I don't see anything wrong with crying/showing his emotions in this instance.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that whinging about stupid first world problems, and the simple act of crying/showing emotion when something bad happens can be completely different things.

I'd disagree with you. Crying is an act that prevents you from doing. There would be plenty of time to cry after taking the necessary steps to sort out the problem, and even then crying may not be necessary because the problem is resolved.

I have no problem with anyone crying, but if it's crying in lieu of actually doing something to solve whatever it is you are crying about, it's a weakness of character to me.