HN Books @HNBooksMonth

Thanks for the feedback!

The 3Ps model comes from Gilmore's 1991 book Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity. It's a dense read and very well researched. The 3Ps comes out of the studies on male honor and that culture and how they are all linked together. Very few societies do not have male honor cultures. And yes, not all males participate in their honor culture, but as a consequence they are not considered 'real men' in their culture. The culture of men in Texas very much has the 3Ps defining a 'real man'.

https://www.amazon.com/Manhood-Making-Cultural-Concepts-Masc...

As for asking OP to change, welp, yeah. I mean, she's literally asking HN what she needs to change to get a man to settle with her.

I don't see why they would be abusive at all. The Protector role is the literal opposite of that. A 'real man' protects his family and loved ones, he does not harm them. This is in part why wife-beaters and child abusers are so reviled in the culture and courts of Texas.

Hopefully the book will be a good summer read for you. Thanks again!

⬐ shemtay

Interesting! Any knowledge of a corresponding female social phenomenon being similarly characterized?

⬐ ostenning

A man can have honor and represent amicable qualities: wanting to provide and protect - nothing wrong with that, but if a man has a problem with a woman being a provider or protector then thats a recipe for disaster. You shouldn’t have to make yourself appear weak so that a man is attracted to you.

Its better to filter out people who don’t accept you for who you are rather than bend over backwards to try to appease someone. If you are a kickass woman entrepreneur then lean into that and find someone who admires that quality in you.

In regards to the potentially abusive situation, let me elaborate: If a man needs a woman to be weaker than him, in my mind that is toxic and potentially abusive. Best filter these people out from the beginning by being honest with yourself and them

Thanks!

To answer your ?s and speak to your comment:

- Short answer: Probably never. The 3Ps theory is well established in academic masculinist studies. A good overview of the 3Ps comes from Gilmore's 1991 book Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity if you want to learn more. Very briefly, all males conform to these Ps to participate in male honor. Yes, many males do not, but they are then without honor, and therefore considered not 'real' men in their culture. Honor is redefined here to encompass more than just the classical concept and is more a pan-male term, it gets a bit wonky. Man is also generally defined as 'not a boy', not 'not a woman'(sorry for all the nots here). The book does a much better job at introducing the ideas than a little HN comment could. In the end, I fail to see how any generation is going to escape ~200,000 years of human history. I could be very very wrong though!

https://www.amazon.com/Manhood-Making-Cultural-Concepts-Masc...

- It's not caveman, it's a theory of how men work in their culture and in almost all cultures we know of (the book goes into the exceptions and how they 'prove the rule' essentially). In the culture of Texas, 'real men' possess these three Ps, or at least have 2 Ps in above average amounts. HN isn't the best place to really dive into it, as most of the men here have above average Provider traits due to the income from tech jobs. It kinda blinds them to men that have to rely on the Protector and Procreator roles for their honor. I want to stress, Provider is not just income.

OP being a selector, and not a selectee, changes the equation a lot, of course. However, understanding the psychology of the men she is dating and their need of the 3Ps may help her address why her strategy is failing. Fluffing up the Protector role, or choosing men that have a lot of strengths in that role, may lead to more success.

⬐ pawelmurias

If both you and your wife have good jobs I doubt you would be considered a less honorable man then if you had the same good job and your wife had a shitty one.