The 3 P’s of Manhood: A

Review

Are men everywhere alike in their concern (and desire) for being manly?

Is the concept of manliness meaningless and entirely culturally relative?

For the last several weeks we have been exploring the answers to these
questions by discussing the findings contained in Dr. David D.
Gilmore’s Manhood in the Making.

Twenty years ago, Gilmore set out to conduct an exhaustive cross-cultural

analysis of how masculinity is perceived and lived around the world.

What he discovered was that far from being exceptional and widely divergent,
conceptions of what constitutes a “real man” have been common and
consistent through time and around the world. A distinct code of manhood has
not only been part of nearly every society on earth — whether agricultural or
urban, premodern or advanced, patriarchal or relatively egalitarian — these
codes invariably contain the same three imperatives; a male who aspires to
be a man must protect, procreate, and provide.

As the subject is a fascinating and vital one, we have given each of these “3
P’s of Manhood” a thorough treatment. It was definitely a lot to take in; it’s
really turned into a kind of Manhood 101 course! So today, for those who
didn’t make it through the beastly posts, and for those who did but could use a
quick re-orientation, today we’re providing a crib sheet that distills what we
have covered thus far down to the basic fundamentals.

The 3 P’s of Manhood in Review

Protect

The essence of protection is the “need to establish and defend boundaries.”

Boundaries create a sense of identity and trust. Should that line be crossed,
men will spring into action. Men are called on to guard the perimeter between
danger and safety, protecting tribe and family from predators, human
enemies, and natural disasters.

A man adds to his individual honor by developing and demonstrating prowess

in the protector role. At the same time, he bolsters his community’s reputation
for strength as well, as the tribe’s overall reputation serves as a form of
protection in and of itself — functioning as a deterrent to attack.

The protector role requires:

 Physical strength and endurance.

 Skill in the use of weapons and strategy.
 Courage – the ability to stand one’s ground, even when inwardly scared.
 Physical and emotional stoicism – an insensibility to physical pain and
coolness under pressure.
 Voluntary, graceful acceptance of one’s expendability – a man glories in
the fact he may have to lay down his life for his people.
 Public demonstration of one’s aptitude in the protector role, as shown
through physical contests (wrestling, sparring, competitive sports). It is
important not only to demonstrate strength and skill in these contests, but
to show one’s gameness – that you’re a scrapper who’ll keep coming back
for more even when battered.

Why men were historically given this role:

 Men have on average greater physical strength than women.

 Wombs are more valuable than sperm.
Procreate

The imperative to procreate essentially requires that a man act as pursuer of a

woman, successfully impregnate her, and thus create a “large and vigorous
family” that expands his lineage as much as possible.

The procreator role requires:

 Acting as the initiator in the seduction/courtship of women.

 Virility and potency – the ability to “get it up.”
 The ability to sexually satisfy a woman.
 Fecundity and having as many children as possible.

Why men were historically given this role:

 Higher testosterone and thus sexual drive.

 Ability to have numerous children and higher desire to spread seed.
Provide

The essence of provision is the ability to tame nature, to turn chaos into order,
to take the raw materials of life and transform them into something of value. It
involves, as Gilmore puts it, “purposive construction” — “commanding and
assertive action that adds something measurable to society’s store.”

Hunting is the “provisioning function par excellence,” for it involves all the
manly attributes (physical strength, mastery of tools, discipline and
determination, initiative, etc.) and is a creative act that parallels battle, sport,
and sex.

The provider role requires:

 Contributing the lion’s share of sustenance to one’s tribe/family (about a

70/30% split between husband and wife across times and cultures).
 Resourcefulness – cleverness, the ability to maneuver around obstacles,
come up with creative solutions to problems, turn scarce resources into
something of value.
 Becoming self-reliant – dependency is seen as shameful in a man,
because he cannot be fully autonomous and provide for others if he is still
dependent on his childhood family for care. It is seen as especially
important to become independent of one’s mother.
 Being generous with your community – a man who does well for himself is
expected to give back.

Why were men were historically given this role:

 Greater physical strength than women (hunting could be strenuous).

 More expendable than women (hunting could be fatal).
 Required journeying far from home (it would have been difficult for
pregnant/nursing mothers and mothers with small children to undertake
lengthy, arduous trips).

The Elements that Underlie the 3 P’s

There are several shared standards and necessary prerequisites that are
common to all three of the P’s of Manhood:

 An earned status. Manhood is different from biological maleness, and it

does not accrue to a man naturally through maturation. Rather it is a status
of honor that must be earned through merit – by demonstrating excellence
in the manly imperatives.
 Autonomy. Autonomy involves the “absolute freedom of movement” — “a
mobility of action.” It means being able to make your own decisions, call
your own shots, create your own goals, set your own pace, carve your own
path. If restrictions are placed on the ability of man to strive for excellence
in the 3 P’s, the chance to achieve manhood, and the existence of a true
culture of manhood, disappears.
 Energy. A man is expected to overcome passivity, to always be up and
doing, and to ceaselessly strive to achieve. A man is charged with taking
the initiative in any endeavor, be it courtship or business.
 Danger and risk. All of the imperatives are set up as win/lose propositions.
Risk may take the form of bodily harm or simply the blow to one’s manly
reputation that comes from the failure to demonstrate competence in the
standards of manhood. Most seriously, “losing” may mean losing one’s life.
To win means gaining greater access to resources and the respect and
honor of one’s fellow men and tribe. Mens’ greater amounts of testosterone
fuel the desire to take these risks.
 Competition. Each of the manly roles involves competition between men
to be the best – to bag the most game, accumulate the most wealth, give
away the most wealth in the provider role; to marry the most wives, have
the most kids, seduce the most women in the procreator role; to
demonstrate the greatest strength, courage, mastery in the protector
role. Men want to best their fellows, rise to the top, and be crowned with
honor. Again, men’s higher testosterone fuels this drive to compete.
 Public affirmation. When it comes to excellence in the 3 P’s — talk
doesn’t matter, results do. You have to put your money where your mouth
is, and thus competence in all the manly pursuits must be demonstrated in
the public square and affirmed by others. You must be willing to sally forth
into the fray, to compete with other men, and show how you stack up
against them. A man must be “in the arena.” For this reason a man who is
a homebody, who avoids public contests, and desires to spend most of his
time with wife and children is considered effeminate. As Gilmore puts it,
“One wins or loses, but…one must play the game. The worst sin is not
honest failure but cowardly withdrawal.”
 Create more/consume less. The ultimate standard for each of the
imperatives, and for the mantle of manhood itself, is to create more and
consume less. To be a man is to demonstrate competence in the manly
role – to pull one’s own weight, to be a contributor rather than a sponge, a
boon rather than a burden to one’s people. This means adding to your
tribe’s reputation for strength instead of detracting from it through physical
frailty and cowardice, choosing fecundity over sterility, and providing
something of value to society’s pot instead of only taking from it.

The Nature of the 3 P’s

The 3 P’s of Manhood emphasize and exaggerate the distinct biological
potentialities of men, motivating them to channel that potential in service to
the greater good.

The manly imperatives can be seen as having a dual nature and purpose:
they are both civic duties and personal development pathways that (if the
prerequisites above are met) simultaneously benefit both a man’s community
and the man personally.

We’ll explore this dynamic and its implications in a modern world where
manhood isn’t honored or valued in the final two posts in this series.
Manhood: A Three-Fold Path
Across cultures and time, the journey to manhood has been considered a
three-fold path. Manhood can be viewed as a mighty edifice that must be built
with three pillars of support. If one of the pillars is missing or weakened, too
much stress is placed on the remaining pillars, twisting and contorting them.

For example, in a time where most men aren’t called upon to be protectors,
and may have an unsatisfying, uncreative job, the procreator pillar (at least
the sex part of it) can seem the only remaining way to demonstrate one’s
manhood. Designed to be just one part of a man’s multi-faceted life, the pillar
of procreation is forced to support much more weight than it was intended,
turning sex into an unhealthy obsession.

Each of the pillars is important, and each interacts and interrelates with the
others. For example, a man who demonstrates prowess as a protector can
win the respect of his fellow men who then wish to partner with him in
hunting/business, offering him the chance to become a better provider. And a
man who is a better provider will attract more women, leading to the
opportunity to become a procreator. The pillars cannot be completely
separated either; a man will not be considered manly if he, say, fathers a
brood of progeny, but fails to provide for them.

A failure to contribute in one or more of the manly imperatives is considered

shameful, even if this failure is due to a disability or circumstance outside the
man’s control. But a man can mitigate this shame if he seeks to find other
ways to pull his own weight by striving for greater excellence in the charges in
which he can contribute. For example, a frail man might still strengthen his
tribe by developing technological innovations. An infertile man might work to
become a mighty warrior or a matchless hunter. However he can, a man tries
not to be a burden to others.

The greatest shame and scorn is reserved for a man who can’t, or won’t,
strive in the pursuits of manhood – and doesn’t care either. He may denigrate
the ideals of masculinity, evince indifference to the importance of a manly
reputation, or attempt to move the goal posts on manhood to better match his
own personal aptitudes and proclivities. For example, a man who is frail but
has a keen intellect may say, “There’s nothing manly about being strong.
That’s for dumb meatheads. A real man cultivates his mind.” Or a man who
can’t, or does not want to have children may say, “What’s manly about being a
dumb breeder? Any idiot can knock a woman up. A man knows what he
wants, and I don’t want to ever have children.”

An honorable man says, “I cannot contribute in this manly role, and I admit I
fall short in this area of the manly code. But I understand why this standard is
part of the code and I respect it. I will strive to be excellent where I can and
seek to contribute in other ways.”

Being A Good Man vs. Being Good

at Being a Man
When anthropologist Michael Herzfeld made a study of the culture in a small
village in Crete, he found that the men distinguished between two standards
of manhood: being a good man and being good at being a man. The 3 P’s are
the requirements of earning the latter designation.
Being a good man means living the “higher” moral virtues – having a virtuous
character. Goodness involves seeking Beauty, Truth, Wisdom, and Justice,
and being kind, honest, and true. It is about utilizing all of
one’s human potential, achieving what the ancient Greeks called eudemonia –
a truly flourishing life. Being a good man is not much different than being a
good woman, and it is thus a definition that has more to do with how a man is
different than a child, than how a man is different from a woman.
Being good at being a man means being able to perform the male role
competently – to be a proficient protector, procreator, and provider, to be
willing to take public risks, face danger, work hard, take action, compete
fiercely, seek strength, and solve problems. It is focused on utilizing one’s
distinctly masculine potential. Being good at being a man is both about how a
man differs from a child and how he differs from a woman.
Being a good man is a philosophical category of manliness.
Being good at being a man is an anthropological category of manliness.

The first emerges from our minds — a desire to form an ideal.

The second emerges from the realities of biology, evolution, and the
environment.

It is possible to be good at being a man, without also being a good man. For
example a mob boss has a dangerous job, supports his family, and is highly
resourceful. He also whacks people on a whim. He’s not a good man, but he’s
good at being a man. He does actually live the 3 P’s. Which is why, even
though we might not want to emulate him, we still can’t help but to think of him
as pretty manly. Think Walter White for a modern pop culture example –
audiences still wanted to root for him in spite of all the horrendous things he
did (and wanted to lambast Skyler White for her desire to seek the truth and
turn in Walt). The moral side of our brains tells us that he’s not a “real man”
but at the gut-level we feel a degree of ancient, amoral respect.

While it’s possible to be good at being a man, without being a good man, as
we shall see next time, the reverse is not true.

Conclusion and Onwards

In writing this conclusion, and all the posts in this series, I have struggled with
whether to use the present or the past tense. On the one hand, what I have
outlined here has been true in nearly every culture for thousands of years, and
continues to be true in many cultures still today. On the other hand, these
tenets of the ancient code of manhood are greatly challenged, changed, and
criticized in the modern Western world. But because our modern society
represents such a tiny blip in the grand sweep of history, and because there
are still strong echoes of this code even today, I ultimately decided to use the
language of the present in this piece.

At the start of this series, I wrote that in our current culture some people think
manliness is altogether meaningless, and some recognize its reality but fall
into one of three camps: 1) the code of manhood should continue on much as
it has for thousands of years, 2) the code of manhood is
offensive/damaging/irrelevant and should be dropped altogether, or 3) there
are some parts of the code that should be retained, while others should be
jettisoned.

Hopefully, the first three articles in this series have shown that the first
contention – the idea that manliness is meaningless – is thoroughly untenable.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/the-3-ps-of-manhood-a-review/