Reply #12: Nice piece.

[necso]

But I think that "macho" might be a better term than manliness in the original. (Or perhaps "overcompensation" might be even a better term.)

And with all due respect for the professor, I would prefer that he did not opine on the subject of what it means to be a man, since I happen to be one...

Returning to the subject of macho (and overcompensation), my first-order definition is as follows: dominating, domineering, selfish, insensitive, insensible, pigheaded, reckless; excessively-and-openly ambitious, egotistical, competitive, aggressive, sexually-charged (obsessed, driven); lacking in compassion, perception, understanding, empathy and anything else that might be seen by some (other) fool as being a sign of weakness; other overcompensation behavior typical of men who find some inadequacy in themselves.

Given this definition as a basis, and turning to the summation of "manliness" attributed to said professor, "confidence in the face of risk", this becomes something like: "pigheaded, egotistical and down-right delusional refusal to perceive the dangers in one's reckless course -- and/or to change one's foolhardy behavior".

This seems a fair summary of the essential method of operation of the whole "manliness" camp (that is, as it pertains to risk).