amberfox4 said:It all really depends on how one chooses to define the concept of manhood.
On one hand, you have the man who acts as a responsible husband and father—someone who carries the weight of providing for his family, managing the finances (or at least a significant portion of them), tackling problems head-on, making the hard calls, and actually owning the consequences of those decisions. On top of all that, he possesses the character to pitch in with the housework and be present in raising his children; essentially, he is a devoted partner who stands firmly behind his family.
Then, on the other hand, you have the perpetual boy—the thirty-year-old who refuses to move out of his parents' house, still playing the role of a student while his folks continue to feed him and buy his clothes...
Technically, both of these individuals are referred to as men, aren't they?
But, let’s be honest, there is a world of difference between the two.
As for what I personally consider to be a true man, it is a standard I would never wish to live up to myself, simply because I suspect it is an incredibly difficult path that requires a level of grit I don't think I possess.
We are talking about the biological and sociological context here.
Look, there are all kinds of people—some are responsible, some aren't; some are wealthy, others are struggling.
In this discussion, we are looking at certain conventional social norms and biological realities that are unique to a specific gender. If I recall correctly, my reasoning touched upon both biological factors (like menstruation or childbirth) and societal ones (such as grooming standards, stereotypes, the wage gap, or levels of respect received).
I am not sure what part remains unclear... anyone can be lazy or unintelligent, regardless of their gender.