Hey Gang!

Hope this all finds you doing well and having a grand time while doing
so.

I haven't posted anything for discussion for awhile, and this has been
eating at my brain for awhile.

I was reading a book called Man Made A Memoir of My Body By Ken Baker.
Mr. Baker suffered all of his teens and most of his adult life with a
pituitary tumor that basically strangled his hormonal manhood.

He had this to say after having surgery to have the tumor removed:

"The ancient Greeks have a saying "The suffered is the learned." Here
is what I have learned: Maleness is about biology, manhood is about
an inner, intangible essence. Maleness is about biology; manhood
transcends piology. A drug or the removal of a tumor can make someone
more male, but it makes him more of a man only like breast implants
make someone more of a woman.

For better or worse -- the approved way of being a bale in our society
-- is something that a male is expected to prove. Yet, he is given no
guide, no handbook offering a checklist of accomplishments. Instead
he culls his understanding of what's expected from the personified
icons of manhood -- fathers, brothers, friends, teachers, rock stars,
underwear models, religious figures, politician, TV personalities,
comedians, athletes, movie stars -- than form his collective male
conscience He endures a set or rituals -- among them loosing his
virginity, exhibiting physical, mental and sexual potency, working
hard, ammassing resources -- in an effort to achieve his culture's
idealized state of manhood..."

I'm 'specially interested to hear from you out there who are 45 or
older. I believe that the male icons of that era were so much more
stronger than those of this day and age. But, I really would like to
hear from anyone with a coherent opinion.

Lori