surely the definition of man is dependent upon the social context?
In many tribal societies unless you go through the selected rights of passage (scarification without showing signs of pain, kill a lion, circumcision etc..) you can never be considered a man.
Here it seems to be based on other rights of passage. Unless you’ve drunk 10 pints, can watch a football match without falling asleep and go home and beat your wife and then take yourself very seriously as a alpha male, you’re not a man.
or the singletrack right of passage:
Unless you have ridden at least one of every genre of mountain bike, used mucc-off as aftershave, bivvied under a hedge for month, raced past a roadie on a single speed and then grown a novelty beard or ‘tache and owned someone with bombers you are not a man!
It also seems to differ depending on geographical location. A chap who has a man bag, uses cosmetic products and moisturiser would be excepted as a “man” in London, but would likely be accused of “riding the other bus” if he lived in the midlands.
so in all these instances I don’t qualify, I’ve got tribal scars but never killed a major predator (although I have rubbed the fur the wrong way on a kitten), don’t like football, never owned someone with bombers and I’m not a misogynist.
Guess I’ll just carry on being terribly childish and having a lovely time thanks 😀