Documentary: The Disappearing Male

Off Topic
201

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
Well said Aussie Davo.

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
That is a fantastic post, I must have missed it amidst the babble about automatic weapons.

Now, going on the above…I agree that ALL of the above traits in batman’s post represent excellent goals for men…but are they not also excellent goals for women in the modern world, as well?

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

Is it a negative thing for a woman to be the master of her emotions, to accept adversity and challenges, to be willing and able to compete, to be willing and able to use force to defend herself, or to be willing to accept confrontation in a disciplined, self-controlled fashion to stand up for her ideals?

[/quote]

This is usually how the masculinity discussion goes-- a bunch of guys come up with a bunch of virtuous traits that most of them barely posses and declare them masculine. As if only men have these qualities. And is if most men do.

You can’t all be leaders. And I’m willing to bet that very few of you are.

[/quote]

Generally speaking The traits most in line with positive leadership I would label masculine. Of course we men possess these skills to varying degrees, but those of us who possess more of these traits, succeed more than those than those that have less.

[/quote]

These aren’t traits that you’re just born with. These are acquired traits. Some men acquire them, some don’t. Some women acquire them, some don’t. It isn’t based on gender/sex but on life experience, how you are raised, etc. Leadership is not nature, it’s nurtured. Some come by it easily, some don’t.

202

[quote]imhungry wrote:
I had no idea that there were issues with today’s men and women, until I joined TN.

I guess ignorance truly IS bliss.

Or, it’s all a matter of perspective. You know, the whole “the more things change, the more they stay the same” type thing…[/quote]

I never noticed this supposedly catastrophic downfall of masculinity prior to this site either. This is literally the only place I ever come across where it really seems to be an issue. Not coincidentally, there are a lot of paranoid fearmongers convinced that the gov’t is on the verge of taking everything over and subjugating/imprisoning/eradicating/castrating us on this site. And they always end up in threads like this.

203

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
So… you guys have made a lot of claims of what a masculine man should be… but there are literally no examples.

What are some examples of what a masculine man should be?

Arnold?

Hulk Hogan?

Khal Drogo?

James Bond?

[/quote]

I personally think we would do better to look to actual men for our examples as opposed t actors/fictional characters. Here’s a few in no particular order.

Alexander the Great, Marcus Aurelius, Abraham Lincoln, Elisha Kane, Lt. Audie Murphy, Winston Churchill, Geronimo, Jim Bowie, William Wallace, Andrew Carnegie, Nelson Mandela the list goes on.

I also find reading accounts of common working people, pioneers etc provides some good illustrations of masculine values in action. Loggers on the pacific coast, railroad men, frontiersmen and early steel workers all demonstrated some simple masculine virtues worth remembering.

[/quote]

How about MLK, Jr.? Ghandi? Muhammad Ali? What about people who stand up for what they believe in, even in the face of massive opposition?[/quote]

Great examples, I just stopped typing at a certain point.

I feel that most of the folks on my list stood up for what they believed in, even in the face of massive opposition as well. That was a big part of my selection criteria.[/quote]

Just to play devil’s advocate a little bit, how do we decide in absolute terms what is worth standing up for and what is not. For instance, I don’t think anyone would argue that Hitler didn’t stand up for what he believed in, yet that conviction in his beliefs and all that shit hardly made him masculine. Do those beliefs that people stand up for have to be an advancement of something that is good for humanity, and if so, how exactly is that defined?

I would argue that as long as what that person believes does not necessarily involve the death and destruction of their opponents, then everything is fine and in order. Hitler would have had to destroy a LOT of people to carry out his beliefs; MLK Jr, Ghandi, and so forth didn’t need to kill anyone in aggression to carry their message to others.

When I was a kid I hit the game-winning homerun in a baseball game that was, shockingly for that age, tied at 0-0 in the last inning with the playoffs on the line. My coach told the rest of the team that I was a hero because I had succeeded where everyone else had failed. That stuck with me for a long time, admittedly for all the wrong reasons for a long time too.

But I think that might be a good measuring stick to keep in mind. Heroic men are masculine, but by my coach’s definition heroism does not have to be relegated to the battlefield. I like your examples except for one thing: for the most part they were warriors who advanced their own cultures and the safety of their own people, but at the expense of other civilizations (Alexander and Aurelius, specifically).

I LOVE the inclusion of Abraham Lincoln in your list. People will argue forever about whether or not he was a good President (Push and I really went at it about this a couple years ago) but the bottom line is that he corrected a MAJOR injustice that many people opposed. Whatever his methods were is totally immaterial when considering that what those methods led to was the end of slavery as an institution. Many will criticize the fact that he sidestepped the Constitution in some ways in order to get it done, but like I told Push at the time, I’d just as soon wipe my ass with the Constitution if it made it easier to end slavery. So yeah, I think he is definitely a very masculine man in that sense.

In fact, I would argue that Lincoln is the most masculine of all of our Presidents. I’m sure many would argue that Teddy R. was, but probably for all the wrong reasons. And no, I have not seen “Lincoln” and I don’t plan on doing so anytime in the near future.[/quote]

I’m glad you brought this up. Just to clarify, I am not directly equating “masculinity” with “goodness”. I believe that a “good” man must possess certain qualities that I would describe as masculine in order to be effective in life. He must also possess certain qualities that I would describe as feminine. However, a man can be my mortal enemy and a very “bad” man and still possess qualities that I would recognize as “masculine”. Hitler absolutely possessed masculine qualities such as incredible strength and drive despite all the madness and evil. To deny this in the face of all he accomplished is just deliberate blindness in reaction to the disgust we feel about his purpose.

I have more to say on this subject, but I’m out of time for the moment.

204

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
So… you guys have made a lot of claims of what a masculine man should be… but there are literally no examples.

What are some examples of what a masculine man should be?

Arnold?

Hulk Hogan?

Khal Drogo?

James Bond?

[/quote]

I personally think we would do better to look to actual men for our examples as opposed t actors/fictional characters. Here’s a few in no particular order.

Alexander the Great, Marcus Aurelius, Abraham Lincoln, Elisha Kane, Lt. Audie Murphy, Winston Churchill, Geronimo, Jim Bowie, William Wallace, Andrew Carnegie, Nelson Mandela the list goes on.

I also find reading accounts of common working people, pioneers etc provides some good illustrations of masculine values in action. Loggers on the pacific coast, railroad men, frontiersmen and early steel workers all demonstrated some simple masculine virtues worth remembering.

[/quote]

How about MLK, Jr.? Ghandi? Muhammad Ali? What about people who stand up for what they believe in, even in the face of massive opposition?[/quote]

Great examples, I just stopped typing at a certain point.

I feel that most of the folks on my list stood up for what they believed in, even in the face of massive opposition as well. That was a big part of my selection criteria.[/quote]

Just to play devil’s advocate a little bit, how do we decide in absolute terms what is worth standing up for and what is not. For instance, I don’t think anyone would argue that Hitler didn’t stand up for what he believed in, yet that conviction in his beliefs and all that shit hardly made him masculine. Do those beliefs that people stand up for have to be an advancement of something that is good for humanity, and if so, how exactly is that defined?

I would argue that as long as what that person believes does not necessarily involve the death and destruction of their opponents, then everything is fine and in order. Hitler would have had to destroy a LOT of people to carry out his beliefs; MLK Jr, Ghandi, and so forth didn’t need to kill anyone in aggression to carry their message to others.

When I was a kid I hit the game-winning homerun in a baseball game that was, shockingly for that age, tied at 0-0 in the last inning with the playoffs on the line. My coach told the rest of the team that I was a hero because I had succeeded where everyone else had failed. That stuck with me for a long time, admittedly for all the wrong reasons for a long time too.

But I think that might be a good measuring stick to keep in mind. Heroic men are masculine, but by my coach’s definition heroism does not have to be relegated to the battlefield. I like your examples except for one thing: for the most part they were warriors who advanced their own cultures and the safety of their own people, but at the expense of other civilizations (Alexander and Aurelius, specifically).

I LOVE the inclusion of Abraham Lincoln in your list. People will argue forever about whether or not he was a good President (Push and I really went at it about this a couple years ago) but the bottom line is that he corrected a MAJOR injustice that many people opposed. Whatever his methods were is totally immaterial when considering that what those methods led to was the end of slavery as an institution. Many will criticize the fact that he sidestepped the Constitution in some ways in order to get it done, but like I told Push at the time, I’d just as soon wipe my ass with the Constitution if it made it easier to end slavery. So yeah, I think he is definitely a very masculine man in that sense.

In fact, I would argue that Lincoln is the most masculine of all of our Presidents. I’m sure many would argue that Teddy R. was, but probably for all the wrong reasons. And no, I have not seen “Lincoln” and I don’t plan on doing so anytime in the near future.[/quote]

I’m glad you brought this up. Just to clarify, I am not directly equating “masculinity” with “goodness”. I believe that a “good” man must possess certain qualities that I would describe as masculine in order to be effective in life. He must also possess certain qualities that I would describe as feminine. However, a man can be my mortal enemy and a very “bad” man and still possess qualities that I would recognize as “masculine”. Hitler absolutely possessed masculine qualities such as incredible strength and drive despite all the madness and evil. To deny this in the face of all he accomplished is just deliberate blindness in reaction to the disgust we feel about his purpose.

I have more to say on this subject, but I’m out of time for the moment.[/quote]

That’s about what I was going to say.

Genghis Khan I would consider masculine but not a good person.

I wouldn’t consider someone who is flamboyantly gay to be masculine but they can conceivably still be a good person

205

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
So… you guys have made a lot of claims of what a masculine man should be… but there are literally no examples.

What are some examples of what a masculine man should be?

Arnold?

Hulk Hogan?

Khal Drogo?

James Bond?

[/quote]

I personally think we would do better to look to actual men for our examples as opposed t actors/fictional characters. Here’s a few in no particular order.

Alexander the Great, Marcus Aurelius, Abraham Lincoln, Elisha Kane, Lt. Audie Murphy, Winston Churchill, Geronimo, Jim Bowie, William Wallace, Andrew Carnegie, Nelson Mandela the list goes on.

I also find reading accounts of common working people, pioneers etc provides some good illustrations of masculine values in action. Loggers on the pacific coast, railroad men, frontiersmen and early steel workers all demonstrated some simple masculine virtues worth remembering.

[/quote]

How about MLK, Jr.? Ghandi? Muhammad Ali? What about people who stand up for what they believe in, even in the face of massive opposition?[/quote]

Great examples, I just stopped typing at a certain point.

I feel that most of the folks on my list stood up for what they believed in, even in the face of massive opposition as well. That was a big part of my selection criteria.[/quote]

Just to play devil’s advocate a little bit, how do we decide in absolute terms what is worth standing up for and what is not. For instance, I don’t think anyone would argue that Hitler didn’t stand up for what he believed in, yet that conviction in his beliefs and all that shit hardly made him masculine. Do those beliefs that people stand up for have to be an advancement of something that is good for humanity, and if so, how exactly is that defined?

I would argue that as long as what that person believes does not necessarily involve the death and destruction of their opponents, then everything is fine and in order. Hitler would have had to destroy a LOT of people to carry out his beliefs; MLK Jr, Ghandi, and so forth didn’t need to kill anyone in aggression to carry their message to others.

When I was a kid I hit the game-winning homerun in a baseball game that was, shockingly for that age, tied at 0-0 in the last inning with the playoffs on the line. My coach told the rest of the team that I was a hero because I had succeeded where everyone else had failed. That stuck with me for a long time, admittedly for all the wrong reasons for a long time too.

But I think that might be a good measuring stick to keep in mind. Heroic men are masculine, but by my coach’s definition heroism does not have to be relegated to the battlefield. I like your examples except for one thing: for the most part they were warriors who advanced their own cultures and the safety of their own people, but at the expense of other civilizations (Alexander and Aurelius, specifically).

I LOVE the inclusion of Abraham Lincoln in your list. People will argue forever about whether or not he was a good President (Push and I really went at it about this a couple years ago) but the bottom line is that he corrected a MAJOR injustice that many people opposed. Whatever his methods were is totally immaterial when considering that what those methods led to was the end of slavery as an institution. Many will criticize the fact that he sidestepped the Constitution in some ways in order to get it done, but like I told Push at the time, I’d just as soon wipe my ass with the Constitution if it made it easier to end slavery. So yeah, I think he is definitely a very masculine man in that sense.

In fact, I would argue that Lincoln is the most masculine of all of our Presidents. I’m sure many would argue that Teddy R. was, but probably for all the wrong reasons. And no, I have not seen “Lincoln” and I don’t plan on doing so anytime in the near future.[/quote]

I’m glad you brought this up. Just to clarify, I am not directly equating “masculinity” with “goodness”. I believe that a “good” man must possess certain qualities that I would describe as masculine in order to be effective in life. He must also possess certain qualities that I would describe as feminine. However, man can be my mortal enemy and a very “bad” man and still possess qualities that I would recognize as “masculine”. Hitler absolutely possessed masculine qualities such as incredible strength despite all the madness and evil. To deny this in the face of all he accomplished is just deliberate blindness in reaction to the disgust we feel about his purpose.

I have more to say on this subject, but I’m out of time for the moment.[/quote]

Well, I would argue that he didn’t possess any strength at all and that his “accomplishments” were made possible by the weaknesses and ignorance of those around him. Hitler was actually a coward and revealed as much the day after the Beer Hall Putsch when he fled from the oncoming police forces rather than stay and physically fight/risk his life for what he believed in.

He is a very interesting case study for psychoanalysts and psychohistorians in that many argue that he was not pathological at all and quite in control of his emotions and that sort of thing. According to this school of thought, Hitler was simply a pragmatist who used the latent anti-Semitism in Germany at the time to his own advantage, a Machiavellian manipulator of the worst kind.

I agree with the second school of thought, that he had many, many pathologies that had their roots in a very high-functioning but very serious form of pathological narcissistic personality disorder, amongst other things (necrophilia, coprophilia, etc.)

FUCK! If only the PM function on this site worked properly! I wrote a paper about this for a historiography class I took at Pepperdine while earning my history degree. It was basically a critique of the various ways people have tried to psychoanalyze Hitler and the inherent problems with trying to psychoanalyze a historical figure as polarizing as he was. It simply isn’t feasible to post it in here since the thing is about 22 double-spaced pages, plus the bibliography. I don’t have the disk that it’s on with me anyways and won’t be back at my home for a few more days.

One of the psychoanalysts that I thought got pretty close to the truth regarding him was Erich Fromm. Well, I shouldn’t he got close to the truth since we’ll never know what the truth of the matter really was, but he makes as convincing a case as anyone I researched. If this sort of thing interests you I HIGHLY recommend a book by Ron Rosenbaum called “Explaining Hitler”. Excellent reading.

But like I said, I would argue that his actions were motivated primarily by fear, pathology and rampant self-loathing, not any inner strengths of his. If he was as genuinely fanatical about his beliefs that the pathology crowd asserts (and this is by far the more populous crowd amongst historians and psychoanalysts) then he was driven by that pathology, not strengths.

This discussion is probably best suited for another thread, but I’m willing to carry it on with you here if you’re interested. If the mods ever get this PM thing figured out I will send you a copy of the paper when I am done visiting with my parents for the holidays. I think you’ll like it, and if I do say so myself, it is a very well-written paper. An easy way to put things is that some viewed Hitler as a sort of Michael Corleone figure (evil but in control of his faculties) while others viewed him as a sort of Joker-like figure (totally insane but in control enough to convince others around him that he was on top of his shit long enough to get them to go along with his maniacal plans).

206

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Yeah, I do think he would have gone on stage. His actions indicated as much. Besides, whether or not he would have gone on stage is immaterial because he WAS trying to go after her. Whether it was backstage or onstage, he tried to attack a tiny little woman.

[/quote]

Bullshit. She was on stage speaking so how the fuck would she know what John Wayne was doing back stage? THe whole story is nonsense. You just accept her unsubstantiated story as fact?

What the fuck had the Academy Awards got to do with the native American injustice? It was a totally inappropriate forum which is why she and Brando pissed everyone off. Brando boycotted the awards ceremony and sent this woman in his place to read a 15 page diatribe about native American injustice even though she’d only been allocated 60 seconds to speak on his behalf.

He was crazier than a shithouse rat.

“Marlon Brando reputedly suggested that his cameo role as Jor-El(in Superman) be done by him in voice over only, with the character’s image onscreen being a glowing, levitating green bagel. Unsure if Brando was joking or not, the film’s producers formally rejected the suggestion.”

[quote]
It seems to me that you only think standing up for one’s convictions is “masculine” if they are beliefs that are in accordance with your own. That isn’t masculine at all; it’s narrow, self-serving and quite cowardly. In fact it is VERY cowardly, because you are afraid of beliefs different than your own.[/quote]

I never mentioned masculinity. I just said has a nut. From what I’ve heard he wasn’t much of a father either. Donated money to the Black Panthers too. Broke a photographer’s jaw. Yeah, all round nice guy.

207

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

You are grossly unprepared my friend, grossly unprepared. Sure, not everyone will have to go guerrilla, but if you’re an able-bodied man you’d be expected to do so.

Regardless, your weapons won’t do shit against a well-trained army if you plan on sitting in your home twiddling your thumbs and posting your ridiculous statements on this site. Why don’t you describe in a little bit of detail what you think will happen when the shit hits the fan. Are you thinking more along the lines of WWII Berlin? Vietnam-era Hanoi? Baghdad? You do realize that if you are at home protecting your family, you may in fact be successful once, maybe even a couple times.

But once the enemy figures out that you and your sharp-shooting family have been successfully defending yourselves against their soldiers, they’re going to bring in the big fuckers. And then what? Just stay and protect your family and property until they blow you to smithereens? Are you going to flee the neighborhood?

You haven’t thought any of this out at all, have you? You just have this contrived scenario worked up in your head based on movies and the writings of Polybius.

[/quote]

This is all quite ridiculous and I’m not going to play this game. I never mentioned my level of preparedness, whether I would sit at home etc.

Yes.

You worry about yourself and I’ll take care of myself okay?

LOL. They’d blow you out of there in five minutes with breaching charges. Head to the hills my friend. Take your guerrilla warfare books with you. Best of luck soldier.

[quote]
What do you have? Blind hope and the assumption that the shit will go down but that you won’t have to defend yourself against anything other than the random looter or AWOL stormtrooper.[/quote]

You’re the one making all the assumptions. I just said that I have the right to arm myself to defend myself and my family.

208

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

You are grossly unprepared my friend, grossly unprepared. Sure, not everyone will have to go guerrilla, but if you’re an able-bodied man you’d be expected to do so.

Regardless, your weapons won’t do shit against a well-trained army if you plan on sitting in your home twiddling your thumbs and posting your ridiculous statements on this site. Why don’t you describe in a little bit of detail what you think will happen when the shit hits the fan. Are you thinking more along the lines of WWII Berlin? Vietnam-era Hanoi? Baghdad? You do realize that if you are at home protecting your family, you may in fact be successful once, maybe even a couple times.

But once the enemy figures out that you and your sharp-shooting family have been successfully defending yourselves against their soldiers, they’re going to bring in the big fuckers. And then what? Just stay and protect your family and property until they blow you to smithereens? Are you going to flee the neighborhood?

You haven’t thought any of this out at all, have you? You just have this contrived scenario worked up in your head based on movies and the writings of Polybius.

[/quote]

This is all quite ridiculous and I’m not going to play this game. I never mentioned my level of preparedness, whether I would sit at home etc.

Yes.

You worry about yourself and I’ll take care of myself okay?

LOL. They’d blow you out of there in five minutes with breaching charges. Head to the hills my friend. Take your guerrilla warfare books with you. Best of luck soldier.

[quote]
What do you have? Blind hope and the assumption that the shit will go down but that you won’t have to defend yourself against anything other than the random looter or AWOL stormtrooper.[/quote]

You’re the one making all the assumptions. I just said that I have the right to arm myself to defend myself and my family.[/quote]

  1. You haven’t said specifically what you would be doing, but you’ve made it plain as day that you think you need to protect yourself from the gov’t with weapons. If you think that won’t escalate beyond simply protecting home and family with some simple weaponry without further preparations, you’re a naive fool. You mentioned that you are fighting against this through the political process. Great. What happens when things go beyond that? ARE you prepared for something along these lines? You don’t have to explain what your preparations are, and in fact you’d better off not revealing any specifics on here, but are you at least taking precautions beyond simply keeping a couple loaded guns around? Because it will definitely take more than that to survive when things go beyond simple politics and rhetoric.

And you already ARE playing this game. Actually, it isn’t even a game in your mind is it? This is reality to you, not a game. If you think engaging in this sort of discussion with me is a game, fine. But you’ve already engaged in it. You’re playing it and you know that what I have said in here is true and now that you realize the folly of your naivety you’re trying to back out.

  1. It’s good to see that you have read Che and Mao. I have not, because I don’t see any value in wasting my time with that shit since it ain’t going to happen here. Call it rational ignorance if you want, but I don’t have the time nor the inclination to divert time from my interests and responsibilities to prepare for something that isn’t going to happen.

  2. I am not worried about myself, but I most definitely am worried about you. I don’t think that what you are worried about is going to happen, you DO think it will happen. In fact, Polybius’ writings have mandated as much to you, yet you also think that the shit will hit the fan but somehow you won’t be involved. I worry about someone who holds to such a grossly-naive double standard about something as gravely serious as what you think is going to happen.

  3. “They” aren’t going to blow me out of anything. Like I said, if what you think is going to happens actually does happen, I’ll be up on my roof with my lawn chair and a nice, stiff martini or three enjoying the show in my last moments. I just bought the property and built the house on top of the bomb shelter for the novelty of it, not the utility of it. It’s just where I keep my drum set. That’s about all that gov’t-spec bomb shelters are good for these days.

  4. Sure you’ve got the right to arm and defend yourself and your family. But what do you need to protect yourself from that the political process provides the opportunity to fight against? Are you trying to tell me that you’ve been referring to the political process to fight the common criminal, the random burglar that 99% of us will never come across in our lives?

I may have been born yesterday, pal, but it wasn’t last night.

209

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

So it’s nonsense because you say so. Got it. [rolls eyes][/quote]

If it’s an attempt at defining me and my ‘role’ then damn straight it is. I speak for myself.
[/quote]

Ay, theres the rub…

Should have caught this sooner.

210

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
Well said Aussie Davo.

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
That is a fantastic post, I must have missed it amidst the babble about automatic weapons.

Now, going on the above…I agree that ALL of the above traits in batman’s post represent excellent goals for men…but are they not also excellent goals for women in the modern world, as well?

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

Is it a negative thing for a woman to be the master of her emotions, to accept adversity and challenges, to be willing and able to compete, to be willing and able to use force to defend herself, or to be willing to accept confrontation in a disciplined, self-controlled fashion to stand up for her ideals?

[/quote]

This is usually how the masculinity discussion goes-- a bunch of guys come up with a bunch of virtuous traits that most of them barely posses and declare them masculine. As if only men have these qualities. And is if most men do.

You can’t all be leaders. And I’m willing to bet that very few of you are.

[/quote]

Generally speaking The traits most in line with positive leadership I would label masculine. Of course we men possess these skills to varying degrees, but those of us who possess more of these traits, succeed more than those than those that have less.

[/quote]

These aren’t traits that you’re just born with. These are acquired traits. Some men acquire them, some don’t. Some women acquire them, some don’t. It isn’t based on gender/sex but on life experience, how you are raised, etc. Leadership is not nature, it’s nurtured. Some come by it easily, some don’t.[/quote]

While leadership traits can be learned, I would say a large component is nature.

It’s the reason men built EVERYTHING you see around and pushed society forward.

211

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
Well said Aussie Davo.

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
That is a fantastic post, I must have missed it amidst the babble about automatic weapons.

Now, going on the above…I agree that ALL of the above traits in batman’s post represent excellent goals for men…but are they not also excellent goals for women in the modern world, as well?

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

Is it a negative thing for a woman to be the master of her emotions, to accept adversity and challenges, to be willing and able to compete, to be willing and able to use force to defend herself, or to be willing to accept confrontation in a disciplined, self-controlled fashion to stand up for her ideals?

[/quote]

This is usually how the masculinity discussion goes-- a bunch of guys come up with a bunch of virtuous traits that most of them barely posses and declare them masculine. As if only men have these qualities. And is if most men do.

You can’t all be leaders. And I’m willing to bet that very few of you are.

[/quote]

Generally speaking The traits most in line with positive leadership I would label masculine. Of course we men possess these skills to varying degrees, but those of us who possess more of these traits, succeed more than those than those that have less.

[/quote]

These aren’t traits that you’re just born with. These are acquired traits. Some men acquire them, some don’t. Some women acquire them, some don’t. It isn’t based on gender/sex but on life experience, how you are raised, etc. Leadership is not nature, it’s nurtured. Some come by it easily, some don’t.[/quote]

While leadership traits can be learned, I would say a large component is nature.

It’s the reason men built EVERYTHING you see around and pushed society forward.
[/quote]

Just think if we could get rid of all those women holding us back. I mean shit if we had twice as many people building things and pushing society forward and got rid of all those women that do nothing to further these things. We can probably have this in a generation or two with the current level of science if those biologists get on it.

212

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
Well said Aussie Davo.

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
That is a fantastic post, I must have missed it amidst the babble about automatic weapons.

Now, going on the above…I agree that ALL of the above traits in batman’s post represent excellent goals for men…but are they not also excellent goals for women in the modern world, as well?

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

Is it a negative thing for a woman to be the master of her emotions, to accept adversity and challenges, to be willing and able to compete, to be willing and able to use force to defend herself, or to be willing to accept confrontation in a disciplined, self-controlled fashion to stand up for her ideals?

[/quote]

This is usually how the masculinity discussion goes-- a bunch of guys come up with a bunch of virtuous traits that most of them barely posses and declare them masculine. As if only men have these qualities. And is if most men do.

You can’t all be leaders. And I’m willing to bet that very few of you are.

[/quote]

Generally speaking The traits most in line with positive leadership I would label masculine. Of course we men possess these skills to varying degrees, but those of us who possess more of these traits, succeed more than those than those that have less.

[/quote]

These aren’t traits that you’re just born with. These are acquired traits. Some men acquire them, some don’t. Some women acquire them, some don’t. It isn’t based on gender/sex but on life experience, how you are raised, etc. Leadership is not nature, it’s nurtured. Some come by it easily, some don’t.[/quote]

While leadership traits can be learned, I would say a large component is nature.

It’s the reason men built EVERYTHING you see around and pushed society forward.
[/quote]

Just think if we could get rid of all those women holding us back. I mean shit if we had twice as many people building things and pushing society forward and got rid of all those women that do nothing to further these things. We can probably have this in a generation or two with the current level of science if those biologists get on it.

[/quote]

Never said women are holding us back, strawman bro.

213

In case it needs to be spelled out:

Men naturally possess leadership abilities (which I would label masculine) in much higher amounts than women. Yes, not all men are made to be leaders, yes some leadership traits can be learned, and yes there are small amounts of women who would make good leaders. I’m speaking in generalities here though.

Men pushed society forward because of our natural ability to lead, fight and deal with the world around us directly. I would label the qualities that helped push society forward as being masculine ergo leadership is a masculine trait.

214

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
Well said Aussie Davo.

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
That is a fantastic post, I must have missed it amidst the babble about automatic weapons.

Now, going on the above…I agree that ALL of the above traits in batman’s post represent excellent goals for men…but are they not also excellent goals for women in the modern world, as well?

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

Is it a negative thing for a woman to be the master of her emotions, to accept adversity and challenges, to be willing and able to compete, to be willing and able to use force to defend herself, or to be willing to accept confrontation in a disciplined, self-controlled fashion to stand up for her ideals?

[/quote]

This is usually how the masculinity discussion goes-- a bunch of guys come up with a bunch of virtuous traits that most of them barely posses and declare them masculine. As if only men have these qualities. And is if most men do.

You can’t all be leaders. And I’m willing to bet that very few of you are.

[/quote]

Generally speaking The traits most in line with positive leadership I would label masculine. Of course we men possess these skills to varying degrees, but those of us who possess more of these traits, succeed more than those than those that have less.

[/quote]

These aren’t traits that you’re just born with. These are acquired traits. Some men acquire them, some don’t. Some women acquire them, some don’t. It isn’t based on gender/sex but on life experience, how you are raised, etc. Leadership is not nature, it’s nurtured. Some come by it easily, some don’t.[/quote]

While leadership traits can be learned, I would say a large component is nature.

It’s the reason men built EVERYTHING you see around and pushed society forward.
[/quote]

Just think if we could get rid of all those women holding us back. I mean shit if we had twice as many people building things and pushing society forward and got rid of all those women that do nothing to further these things. We can probably have this in a generation or two with the current level of science if those biologists get on it.

[/quote]

Never said women are holding us back, strawman bro.
[/quote]
If men were responsible for everything built and all the great leadership and all the movement by society it logically extends that more men would create more of these things no? Not a strawman at all.

215

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
Well said Aussie Davo.

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
That is a fantastic post, I must have missed it amidst the babble about automatic weapons.

Now, going on the above…I agree that ALL of the above traits in batman’s post represent excellent goals for men…but are they not also excellent goals for women in the modern world, as well?

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

Is it a negative thing for a woman to be the master of her emotions, to accept adversity and challenges, to be willing and able to compete, to be willing and able to use force to defend herself, or to be willing to accept confrontation in a disciplined, self-controlled fashion to stand up for her ideals?

[/quote]

This is usually how the masculinity discussion goes-- a bunch of guys come up with a bunch of virtuous traits that most of them barely posses and declare them masculine. As if only men have these qualities. And is if most men do.

You can’t all be leaders. And I’m willing to bet that very few of you are.

[/quote]

Generally speaking The traits most in line with positive leadership I would label masculine. Of course we men possess these skills to varying degrees, but those of us who possess more of these traits, succeed more than those than those that have less.

[/quote]

These aren’t traits that you’re just born with. These are acquired traits. Some men acquire them, some don’t. Some women acquire them, some don’t. It isn’t based on gender/sex but on life experience, how you are raised, etc. Leadership is not nature, it’s nurtured. Some come by it easily, some don’t.[/quote]

While leadership traits can be learned, I would say a large component is nature.

It’s the reason men built EVERYTHING you see around and pushed society forward.
[/quote]

Just think if we could get rid of all those women holding us back. I mean shit if we had twice as many people building things and pushing society forward and got rid of all those women that do nothing to further these things. We can probably have this in a generation or two with the current level of science if those biologists get on it.

[/quote]

Never said women are holding us back, strawman bro.
[/quote]
If men were responsible for everything built and all the great leadership and all the movement by society it logically extends that more men would create more of these things no? Not a strawman at all.[/quote]

No it wouldn’t.

Women played an integral role in being socially productive - raising families, maintaining households, cooking our dinners, etc. Their role in society was to support men. A division of labour existed, leading and advancing society fell on the male side.

216

[quote]groo wrote:

If men were responsible for everything built and all the great leadership and all the movement by society it logically extends that more men would create more of these things no? Not a strawman at all.[/quote]

That is true, you needed quite a bit of insinuation to even get to the strawman.

217

Whats wrong with playing video games?

I have been social enough at university to know what its like but I prefer to go out every-so-often now. Quality over quantity.

I’d rather spend my time studying, doing assignments or playing video games than trying to get with some drunk slut who asks my name 4 times in 5 minutes.

I find video games amusing and a good learning experience, if you find being drunk and slobbering some girl you wouldn’t even look twice at in normal conditions as a huge part of your life then you will have serious issues later in life.

I hardly drink now, my friends can only have fun when drunk or with groups of people, that says it all about them.

I can have fun by myself and with others, I just choose to be on my own.

But according to some on TN I am a social reclusive virgin with a pure hatred for people and that if I had access to weapons I would go about using said weapons.

LOL!

218

[quote]groo wrote:

If men were responsible for everything built and all the great leadership and all the movement by society it logically extends that more men would create more of these things no? Not a strawman at all.[/quote]

This just irks me.

There is a reason WHY they built stuff.

If they could have gotten laid without it, they would not have done it.

There is a reason why traditional societies marry them off young, it benefits all of society at the expense of young women and men that would get laid like rockstars.

This whole monogamy business was pairing sexual socialism with economic and political competition and the result was that men who under natural conditions would have never gotten a woman worked their asses off.

You learn something, you master a craft, you work like a horse and you will get a nice, decent looking woman for a good part of your life, that was the deal.

That social contract is no more.

Unfortunately, the best one of these “nice guys” can get now are the used goods a lot of other men have gotten for free and he is expected to pay full price for a rapidly depreciating asset with the added benefit of living under the constant threat of it all being taken away without him ever seeing it coming.

Does that sound a but… direct?

Blunt even?

Well, this is whats happening and like it or not, the sexual urges of the average beta male do matter. Much more so then the orgies of male celebrities because when can do without Gene Simmons, we can do without Magic Johnson we can even do without damsels shuffling paper around in nice airconditioned governmemnt jobs but we cannot do without Joe Beta building bridges, building power lines, maintaining aqueducts and most importantly paying for the whole politically correct LGBT womyn friendly non offending party.

And now look around you, why should Joe Beta pick up a shovel, if he does not have rock hard abs, a winning smile or the game skills of a lvl 14 warlock?

The truth is, the average male could live on very little. 30 hour work week, tops.

What is the point in breaking your back if all it buys you is damaged goods with an attitude and an entitlement complex?

219

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

If men were responsible for everything built and all the great leadership and all the movement by society it logically extends that more men would create more of these things no? Not a strawman at all.[/quote]

This just irks me.

There is a reason WHY they built stuff.

If they could have gotten laid without it, they would not have done it.

There is a reason why traditional societies marry them off young, it benefits all of society at the expense of young women and men that would get laid like rockstars.

This whole monogamy business was pairing sexual socialism with economic and political competition and the result was that men who under natural conditions would have never gotten a woman worked their asses off.

You learn something, you master a craft, you work like a horse and you will get a nice, decent looking woman for a good part of your life, that was the deal.

That social contract is no more.

Unfortunately, the best one of these “nice guys” can get now are the used goods a lot of other men have gotten for free and he is expected to pay full price for a rapidly depreciating asset with the added benefit of living under the constant threat of it all being taken away without him ever seeing it coming.

Does that sound a but… direct?

Blunt even?

Well, this is whats happening and like it or not, the sexual urges of the average beta male do matter. Much more so then the orgies of male celebrities because when can do without Gene Simmons, we can do without Magic Johnson we can even do without damsels shuffling paper around in nice airconditioned governmemnt jobs but we cannot do without Joe Beta building bridges, building power lines, maintaining aqueducts and most importantly paying for the whole politically correct LGBT womyn friendly non offending party.

And now look around you, why should Joe Beta pick up a shovel, if he does not have rock hard abs, a winning smile or the game skills of a lvl 14 warlock?

The truth is, the average male could live on very little. 30 hour work week, tops.

What is the point in breaking your back if all it buys you is damaged goods with an attitude and an entitlement complex?

[/quote]

Fucking lol.

220

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
I had no idea that there were issues with today’s men and women, until I joined TN.

I guess ignorance truly IS bliss.

Or, it’s all a matter of perspective. You know, the whole “the more things change, the more they stay the same” type thing…[/quote]

I never noticed this supposedly catastrophic downfall of masculinity prior to this site either. This is literally the only place I ever come across where it really seems to be an issue. Not coincidentally, there are a lot of paranoid fearmongers convinced that the gov’t is on the verge of taking everything over and subjugating/imprisoning/eradicating/castrating us on this site. And they always end up in threads like this.[/quote]

I think you’re on to something there lol.

The world I live in the sexes live pretty much in harmony. No one actually gives a shit about whether a man is manly or a woman is womanly. I spend my time with a few ‘butch’ lesbians, some ‘effeminate’ gay men and everything else in between from tomboys to guys who work in the oil fields half the year to gentlemen to girly girls and no one really gives a shit as long as you’re a decent human being. Certainly no one spends any time listing the ways in which ANYONE should act to conform to moronic gender ideals that are better suited for a black and white sitcom.

All this talk of the danger of porn and video games maybe we should talking about what happens to people who spend too much time in PWI and think their crazy worldview is actually sane and reasonable =D