Melville Cooke

It is also curious that it is often the good, supportive man who is deemed 'soft'.

And how, pray tell, should a man be measured? Shall it be by the number of children that he has, acknowledged and unacknowledged, brought to mind or 'unminded,' deposited or withdrawn and, by extension, the number of women he has 'licked down'?

Shall it be by the size of the vehicle he drives, the physically larger the ride the mentally larger the driver or, for the many with calculating eyes, the more expensive the vehicle the more worthy the driver?

Shall it be by his girth, as in some schools of thought the fatter the waistline the fatter the wallet, while in others the more packs are present the more punch he packs?

Shall it be in how much he measures on the 10-point Denzil or Brad scale, with the higher the number being the closer to the Washington where there is no White House and the lower relegating him to the 'Pitts'?

Or shall it be the tried and tested inch measure method, the only debate being whether to inch along the upper or the under side of manhood? Or how well he compares to the pink wabbit that keeps going and going and .... Going?

And, as what seems to be the last resort, shall it be by how much he cares for his family, how much he supports his partner (or not), and if there are relaxed smiles, rather than wary unease, when he comes home to his children?

I believe in the last, which is the most private and important, but it seems that I am in the minority. And that minority is, ironically enough, as much on the female as the male side.

Decent human beings

These measurements, the scale of manhood, if you wish, are often discussed in the reverse, with hand-wringing and lamentation about the dearth of fathers and good male role models. Yet when the eligible bachelors are counted up and assessed, there is no mention of the figures presented being simply decent human beings.

As we consider issues from young males being involved in violent crime to underachieving in schools, from the numerous single female-headed households to men being involved more in crashes and clashes much more often than women, the measure of a man should come into consideration. It is the few who will reject what seems to be the accepted standard, whether it is stated outright or indicated by admiring glances.

The rub of the whole matter is that there is hardly any penalty on a man for not being caring. Sure, if it is about his children then the court can insist on financial support (a step that quite a few women do not take in any case), but when a man treats a woman or women badly there will still be a line waiting for him to choose from. And not just to have him and dismiss him, but to have and to hold.

That is where men and women differ. Sure, if a woman is deemed to be substandard in her behaviour man and man will take a piece, but there is a thing called 'wife material' and those who are not cut from that cloth will generally end up very well worn and discarded. In a strange way men tend to be loyal to each other in that way; we will generally check out the 'file' of the woman and, if too thick or too grisly, will file her away.

Women, on the other hand, will take on a man no matter the track record. There will always be a 'ho' or two a bush.

It is also curious that it is often the good, supportive man who is deemed 'soft' and is dismissed or abused, verbally or even physically, by his partner, while the 'ol dog' is given a long leash to roam, if even for a time.

The upshot is that if women, in their day to day lives, redefine the general standards of manhood, it will make a tremendous difference. Is that too much to ask?

Melville Cooke is a freelance writer.