[yetihehe]

> Yes, I picked those examples deliberately, but I don't see why any of the qualitatively good ones are 'manly'.

What was your goal? What was your argument? I said that we need men to be more manly (strong and able to do things that are historically considered to be done by men) and you said that those can be also done by women? I would consider woman able to change a tire, play cards and start fire without matches to be manly. If she wants to, she can of course.

Currently the problem is that we indirectly say to men that being strong is for women and not for men. We say to women "be more manly" and to men "be more womanly", which just perpetuates old cliches, but in reverse.

[sunrunner]

> What was your goal?

I think the thread has been a bit derailed in terms of my intention, which was more to point out that I don't feel like the qualities that are mentioned in the original article (mentorship, guidance figures, schoolwork, relationships, future planning) are really represented well by a clickbait website with articles mostly split between 'Top N things you really need to do for X' and things that would be useful to anyone.

I'd even say the 'Get Style', 'Get Strong', 'Get Social' and 'Get Skilled' categories always appear to wander towards (while never approaching) Andrew Tate territory, in terms of their goals.

> Currently the problem is that we indirectly say to men that being strong is for women and not for men. We say to women "be more manly" and to men "be more womanly", which just perpetuates old cliches, but in reverse.

This I agree with, but I don't feel that website is a good example of a role model for the qualities that the original article mentioned were missing.

[yetihehe]

> I'd even say the 'Get Style', 'Get Strong', 'Get Social' and 'Get Skilled' categories always appear to wander towards (while never approaching) Andrew Tate territory, in terms of their goals.

I agree. Going into "Andrew Tate" territory represents that toxic masculinity for me, it's the far end of spectrum of manliness. But we men don't need to go all the way into absurdity when trying to be more manly. But not all of us are in the same place. Some are too close to unmanly end, some are too close to toxic end. artofmanliness contains articles for both of those people, to move them closer to the center of good manliness (expressed by ideals 'Get Style', 'Get Strong', 'Get Social', 'Get Skilled' and I would add 'Be dependable', 'Be honest').

And being womanly is not an end of spectrum of manliness. Being unmanly (0 of qualities we mentioned, a weak man without style, social or any other skills) is the lowest end of spectrum of manliness.

> This I agree with, but I don't feel that website is a good example of a role model for the qualities that the original article mentioned were missing.

You would have to look more. You have only seen a small sample from each section.