I once asked this question on my Facebook profile, and got some interesting responses. I wanted to ask this again with a (hopefully) wider audience.
What constitutes “manhood” in our society? Is manhood decided, or defined, by our genitalia alone?
I was told recently, by an acquaintance, that I needed to ‘man-up’ since I didn’t know much about football. The implication in the statement is that knowledge of sports, specifically football, is somehow indicative of manhood. This would also imply that manhood is more than our genitalia.
However, having a a penis is, apparently, enough to award manhood even to the most basest among us. For example, take this passage from a recent CNN story:
According to Wisconsin authorities, a homeless man identified as Glenn R. Lambright was arrested. He was released Tuesday from Dane County Jail on a signature bond. It was not known Tuesday night whether Lambright had an attorney.
There is no discussion of the alleged perpetrators genitalia, but he is awarded manhood simply for being male. So, it seems, that having a penis is enough to be considered a man by the media.
But is this actually true, or something the media enforces on our society?
In short, what makes a “man?” Is it only the genitalia? Or is it a mindset, such as knowledge of and enjoyment of sports? Something else entirely?
I hope to get a few responses. I’d seriously like to know.
And, by the way, kudos to the Capital Police for professional service and catching the alleged perpetrator in the above story. Too many times our police officers are derided for the dangerous work they do. Well done, CP!