Men are primarily and secondarily socialised into believing that certain characteristics are definitive in determining their manliness and masculinity. These characteristics range from not crying when they get hurt to being and playing

Is there a double standard in masculinity? It is apparent through the previous arguments that society expects men to be both 'tough' and 'gentle' at the same time. Some might argue that genetics, instincts and their animalistic nature make men want to act more masculine then feminine. The paradox is evident, the source ambiguous. Regardless, masculinity is an unrealistic expectation of men. Who or what are men supposed to be?

Secondary socialisation then acts in the later stages of a boy's life to reaffirm society's beliefs about masculinity. As boys grow older, their bodies develop and they enter junior high and high school. At this point they begin to really understand that physical prowess is the ideal. To see how this is done, we can simply look at the emphasis given to athletics versus the emphasis given to academics in public schools. Understandably, the manner in which schools emphasise athletics over academics is going to have some influence over the way young men think and visualise the importance of physical prowess, but the true legitimator is how athletes are seen by the student-body of the school. Pep rallies are thrown to support the 'athletes', the 'stars' of the school. Girls swoon over the masculine 'hunks'.

Why does society choose blue for boys and pink for girls? Why do we have girls take dance and boys play baseball? There is no genetic difference as to why women would do laundry and a man would mow the lawn. This is a result of externalisation (Bowker 1998). But are males more prone to 'toughness' and masculinity than women? Could it be said that genetics play a factor in what is so often considered to be a socially defined aspect of masculinity? In general, males are much more aggressive than females. Biologists and anthropologists would propose that this be because humans have evolved from a polygamous society. In that society, males competed hard to procreate, and females worked to raise and support the young. These roles demanded aggression in males, and promoted rules such as hierarchy, competition and dominance. A theory promulgated by David Buss takes into consideration the social side of aggression while maintaining that biological instincts are the underlying cause. He suggests in his book The Evolution of Desire that the existence of large numbers of men who cannot attract a mate may increase sexual aggression and rape. He states that "violence is often the recourse of people who lack resources that would otherwise elicit voluntary compliance with their wishes." Rape occurs more often by men who lack the status and resources that women want in mates (Buss 1994). Richard Wrangham and Dale Petersen take another perspective with their insightful article about primates. From their research they conclude that a high percentage of matings were forced copulations. These findings were mostly with the orangutan species, but there is also evidence that chimpanzees and ducks participate in what appears to be rape. The theories suggest that natural selection has favoured rape as a way for smaller males to impregnate females. This theory has also been argued with humans. Thus it could be said that males are genetically prone to violence and aggression (Wrangham 1997).

As young boys move into adulthood they are told to "be men" when confronted with a formidable challenge or when they face some sort of agony. The implication in this phrase is that men should be immune to pain while staying stone faced and not show any emo

Some topics in this essay:
Lee Bowker, , Sambia Guinea, Pollack Harvard, Health Invariably, Dale Petersen, Evolution Desire, David Buss, William Betcher, aggressive behaviour, health fitness, physical prowess, physical prowess ideal, athletic prowess, double standard, gender stereotypes, boy's life, bowker 1998, witt 1997, initiation rites,