Documentary: The Disappearing Male

Off Topic
161

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Putting off going to work for a few minutes.
All my fun atavistic days are past me besides. I don’t hold that what you choose to do in your spare time makes you a man. I also think that comparing sports to true violence is stupid. Some things are closer but even the combat sports have many rules. People that lived in truly violent times had more brutish shorter lives. There’s nothing glorious about that.
Is someone doing a driveby shooting more of a man? Or a drug cartel chopping off a guy’s head something manly? Clearly its not simply violence that makes a man.
[/quote]

I think you’ve mixed me up with another poster. I didn’t compare sports to violence or glorify violence.[/quote]

I think it may me that groo is responding to.

Just to clarify, I did not compare sports to real violence. Such a comparison would indeed be stupid and insulting to all those living and dead who have ever endured real violence. I said sports were a form of RITUALIZED combat and a SUBSTITUTE for real fighting. As in something symbolic you do instead of the real thing. The ancient Olympics were a time when all wars were suspended in favour of athletic competition. IMO, that spirit still exists in modern sport. We need conflict as a species. Sports provide an outlet for that need that doesn’t require the wholesale slaughter of young men.

Also, I did not glorify violence. I did not say that a beheading or a drive-by shooting makes a man. I did not say that being violent in order to survive in a violent world is glorious That is also stupid. I said that being ready and willing to fight for what you hold dear (i.e. family, country, what’s right etc.) is a big part of what makes a man. If a man is too passive or cowardly to stand up to a bully, protect his family from danger or defend his country from aggression he is, in my estimation, less of a man. Being violent when it is necessary is not glorious, it is simply necessary, and I admire men who are willing and to do the necessary thing when called upon. That is a big part of what makes a man. Seeing that willingness to fight and the people who exhibit it as a necessary evil or a source of shame or a sign of being less evolved is part of what’s wrong with our society.

If we live in less violent times it is due in no small part to the sacrifices of all those who have done violence to get us here and who stand ready to do violence in the preservation of our way of life. Historically, this has been a male-dominated role (although that may be changing) and the advent of professional armies, police etc to do that work for us is relatively recent. As such, for much of our history, being willing to fight and hunt for the family/tribe/clan/village etc was the responsibility of every able bodied man (and plenty of half grown boys) and part of what defined masculinity. To say that we don’t need that anymore is short-sighted, wishful thinking.

162

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
“Examples”? You really want examples?

[/quote]

Sorry for the thread hijack. Back to topic…[/quote]

This guy is NOT masculine at all. John Fucking Wayne was a goddamned coward. This is a guy who tried to physically attack a Native American woman at the Academy Awards, who was less than half his size, simply because she had the nerve to use the forum Marlon Brando provided her by letting her accept his award for him to decry the massive amount of injustice being done to her people. She stood up for what she believed in, a VERY “masculine” trait if there ever was one, and John Wayne tried to assault her. Yeah, what a fucking man.[/quote]

This is what she alleges:

“John Wayne was backstage, and he became very upset at my speech, and it took four to six men to restrain him from coming to drag me off stage,” says Littlefeather.

Do you really think Wayne would’ve gone onto the stage and dragged her off? Any other witnesses to corroborate what she said? Where are the “four to six men” who had to restrain him and why haven’t they ever spoken about it? She was trying to use the Awards ceremony to present a 15 page diatribe by fruitcake Brando. I would’ve dragged her off stage myself.

EDIT: And if Sacheen Littlefeather was on stage giving her speech how the fuck would she know what was happening backstage?

163

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

There’s nothing “masculine” about staying out of the fight or avoiding it all together when the fight has appeared at your doorstep. What you are talking about is revolution. How often do revolutions occur within a political system and society that doesn’t come with some good old-fashioned fighting of some sort.
[/quote]

That’s not what I said. I said not everyone would be involved in the fighting.

[quote]
Red herring my ass. And if you aren’t going to be resorting to guerrilla warfare in the first place then WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU NEED THE RIGHT TO BEAR AUTOMATIC WEAPONS FOR?[/quote]

To protect your family and yourself as opposed to joining a band of guerrilla fighters? I thought I explained this already.

164

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Are Orion and SexMachine making the same preparations that Chechens have made? Do they live in some dirt poor country, or they a part of the bourgeois and totally unprepared to live the life of the common guerrilla soldier.[/quote]

I’m sure when the shit hits the fan that people ‘unprepared for the life of a common guerrilla soldier’ would still prefer to be armed for self preservation and protection of their families and property than to be unarmed.[/quote]

Well sure, but without the proper precautions having your own gun ready for these eventualities is no different than keeping a stock car in your garage in case someone asks you to fill in for Jimmy Johnson at the Daytona 500 without ever having driven the course before.[/quote]

Sorry, I missed these posts due to posting time delay. That is not an apt analogy. As I said, not everyone is going to be a guerrilla fighter but firearms will help people survive and protect themselves and their families.[/quote]

Not if they aren’t prepared to use them, pal. Not if they aren’t prepared. Your guns might protect you against the odd storm trooper or two, but what are you going to do when a 1000lb bomb gets dropped through your living room ceiling? Then what?[/quote]

Who said anything about not being prepared to use them? I said not everyone would fight in a band of guerrillas. People still have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and their families regardless of whether or not they are fighting as guerrillas. Also, I don’t think a guerrilla fighter would fare any better from a direct hit from a 1000lb bomb than someone who isn’t a guerrilla. This is getting silly.

165

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
“Examples”? You really want examples?

[/quote]

Sorry for the thread hijack. Back to topic…[/quote]

This guy is NOT masculine at all. John Fucking Wayne was a goddamned coward. This is a guy who tried to physically attack a Native American woman at the Academy Awards, who was less than half his size, simply because she had the nerve to use the forum Marlon Brando provided her by letting her accept his award for him to decry the massive amount of injustice being done to her people. She stood up for what she believed in, a VERY “masculine” trait if there ever was one, and John Wayne tried to assault her. Yeah, what a fucking man.[/quote]

This is what she alleges:

“John Wayne was backstage, and he became very upset at my speech, and it took four to six men to restrain him from coming to drag me off stage,” says Littlefeather.

Do you really think Wayne would’ve gone onto the stage and dragged her off? Any other witnesses to corroborate what she said? Where are the “four to six men” who had to restrain him and why haven’t they ever spoken about it? She was trying to use the Awards ceremony to present a 15 page diatribe by fruitcake Brando. I would’ve dragged her off stage myself.[/quote]

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.

She was trying to use the Academy Awards to stand up against a grave injustice that she and “fruitcake” Marlon Brando (who was most likely twice the man you’ll ever be) believed strongly in. THAT is “masculine”. 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.

166

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Are Orion and SexMachine making the same preparations that Chechens have made? Do they live in some dirt poor country, or they a part of the bourgeois and totally unprepared to live the life of the common guerrilla soldier.[/quote]

I’m sure when the shit hits the fan that people ‘unprepared for the life of a common guerrilla soldier’ would still prefer to be armed for self preservation and protection of their families and property than to be unarmed.[/quote]

Well sure, but without the proper precautions having your own gun ready for these eventualities is no different than keeping a stock car in your garage in case someone asks you to fill in for Jimmy Johnson at the Daytona 500 without ever having driven the course before.[/quote]

Sorry, I missed these posts due to posting time delay. That is not an apt analogy. As I said, not everyone is going to be a guerrilla fighter but firearms will help people survive and protect themselves and their families.[/quote]

Not if they aren’t prepared to use them, pal. Not if they aren’t prepared. Your guns might protect you against the odd storm trooper or two, but what are you going to do when a 1000lb bomb gets dropped through your living room ceiling? Then what?[/quote]

Who said anything about not being prepared to use them? I said not everyone would fight in a band of guerrillas. People still have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and their families regardless of whether or not they are fighting as guerrillas. Also, I don’t think a guerrilla fighter would fare any better from a direct hit from a 1000lb bomb than someone who isn’t a guerrilla. This is getting silly.[/quote]

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. Have you ever read anything written by Che or Mao on guerrilla warfare? I understand that you’ll avoid violence and that things MAY not get nearly as ugly as what I have described. But what if things DO get that ugly? Are you ready? WHAT IF?

After all, that’s all any of this is. A bunch of what-if scenarios. Sounds like you’ve thought of all the what-if scenarios that allows you to justify owning any and all “arms” that you want, but you haven’t thought about the actual reality of the situation. You are a naive fool if you think you it isn’t going to happen to you when the shit goes down. An utter, ignorant, ill-prepared fool.

Fuck, I built the house I live in on top of a Cuban Missile Crisis-era bombshelter with 4’ thick, steel-reinforced concrete walls that could handle a 747 nose-diving on top of my house at terminal velocity. 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.

167

[quote]xjusticex2013x wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]xjusticex2013x wrote:
I play video games too, but mainly Arkham City ATM; the fact that I get to play as Batman nullifies any adverse affects, perceived or otherwise.[/quote]

Is that the game where you can play as the Joker or the Batman? I love Batman so much I actually thought about getting an XBox or Playstation or whatever the hell it’s on just so I could play that one game when I heard that it was so good. If that is the game I’m thinking of, I think all of society’s problems can be linked to what I would assume is a massive amount of people choosing to be the Joker instead of Batman.[/quote]

Nah; you play as Bats, with some time allocated to playing as Catwoman’s hot ass. :stuck_out_tongue: FTR, I play on PC.
[/quote]

Oh, that doesn’t sound fun. I was looking forward to possibly playing as the Joker and emasculating myself into oblivion.

168

[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.

169

[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?

170

[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.

171

All this talk and there still isn’t a clear definition of what exactly is ‘masculine.’

At best, the consensus seems to be, “Stuff that’s generally admirable,” yet the majority of those admirable traits mentioned so far equally apply to admirable women of history.

Can we do a little bit better, here? Or are we satisfied with implying that admirable women are in fact masculine?

172

[quote]Antonio. B wrote:
Man is masculine when he dominates the world, his family, when woman obeys to him… also man is masculine when he is mentally and physically ready for a combat, for survival… wether he is heavyweight powerlifter build like or middle weight boxer… doesn’t really matter… Too bad, civilization forces a lot of men to become mentally and physically useful only for licking clitoris of western feminist ladies… Going to a gym and pumping those muscles usually is just a butaphorical masculinity which even looks funny… [/quote]

Except this is the exact problem with the definitions of masculinity in this thread. They all seem to have an underlying theme of this childish cliche ideal of “being a manly man man”.

Contrary to what some guys here like to believe, none of you are dominant over the world. Shit you’re not even dominant in your immediate daily life, whether you like it or not you ARE submissive in several relationships, otherwise society would not function at all. Try to “be the Alpha Male bro” on your boss and you will quickly find yourself out of a job. Try to be dominant over some dude you don’t know, and you will probably get a fucking beating.

Your family? Sure, but unless you plan on imparting your children with some serious father issues, you will find yourself bending to their will at several points in their life naturally. And that’s not even a bad thing, but probably rather a necessity in their development as individuals.

Your woman? Yeah okay, it’s perfectly fine as a male to be the dominant partner in the relationship and most heterosexual women prefer it that way I’d wager. But lmao if you’re expecting her to “obey” you constantly I’d suggest you are either abusive or she isn’t very intelligent. Again if you want a healthy relationship you’d probably find yourself coming to an agreement or otherwise conceding on certain issues, like y’know, normal socially healthy people do. Unless you are one of those borderline autistic PUA lameasses who perceive any disagreement with them by a women as them losing their “alpha” status and have to ask their fellow autists how an “alpha” male would handle it.

Built for combat, built for survival? Kind of a moot point if you’re living in a well off society as most here are. How many of you really know how to survive in the wilderness? Wouldn’t it be more relevant to know how to be better off in society RIGHT NOW?

Really no one has come up with any clear definition of masculinity and why men today supposedly don’t have it. Mostly it just seems to border on “lol that guy dresses like a fag so hes not a manly man”

173

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
All this talk and there still isn’t a clear definition of what exactly is ‘masculine.’

At best, the consensus seems to be, “Stuff that’s generally admirable,” yet the majority of those admirable traits mentioned so far equally apply to admirable women of history.

Can we do a little bit better, here? Or are we satisfied with implying that admirable women are in fact masculine?

[/quote]

I am sorry that you feel that way.

This post below is pretty much the best description of masculinity I have ever seen.
Amidst all the shallow rambling, these words hit the right spot - to me it does not actually get any better than this:

"batman730 wrote:

Yep, and as in the polar bear discussion I’m gonna disagree, well thought out or not.

I believe that the capacity to do violence, when it is appropriate and/or necessary is very close to the core of the male essence. A man who is unwilling or unable to do violence in the protection of that which he holds dear is, in my estimation, inherently less masculine. He may be a better person but he IS less of a man.

The male has an imperative to protect, defend and to exercise authority. Force is at the root of that, force of personality, force of intellect and, in extremity, force of arms and physical force in general. It is in the appropriateness of how that force is employed that we see the difference between a decent man and a criminal (or a tyrant). I believe that the correct use of force is one of the most misunderstood and unjustly maligned concepts in our modern society. Almost all the great achievements in human history have required some application of force to complete and preserve or have been born as a direct result of conflict. Now we see it as a necessary evil at best or an obsolete remnant of some less evolved era at worst. Neither could be further from the truth.

It is, in my estimation, the general moral rejection of direct force as a valid and sometimes essential and admirable response that has castrated us in spirit. It is unseemly to even SPEAK in a manner that is overly forceful for fear of appearing overly pushy or opinionated. Conflict is to be eschewed at all costs in favour of conciliation, consensus and conformity which ultimately degenerates into passivity, apathy and general malaise. We, as men, are trained to divorce ourselves from that within us which is violent, forceful. Instead of owning it, embracing it and using it rightly in our lives for the preservation and betterment of our civilization, we reject it and are only allowed to experience it vicariously as a pail, twisted shadow of its true self in the form the aforementioned video games, movies, porn etc. (which I find entertaining as hell FTR).

By extension, “masculine men don’t show emotions” is a diluted reflection of another truth of masculinity, IMO. A man must be the master of his emotions not the other way round. At times this will mean he must conceal/restrain them through sheer force of will and self discipline. It is necessary for any functioning human to be able to display his or her emotions with passion and authenticity when it is appropriate. However any guy who is ruled by his emotions and wears their heart on his sleeve because they have no choice is, IMO, a child and so by definition not a man.

Similarly, the pursuit of physical strength, prowess and vigour is an inherently masculine impulse. It is an extension of my first point about capacity for violence. Sports are ritualized combat and preparing for sport is a substitute for preparing for war. Being better at sports/a more talented athlete does not make you a better man, but the dedication and intensity with which you practice/train does. Men need to compete. They need to struggle and strive to be living in the fullness of their manhood. They must fight and win and lose and bleed and cry and shout their triumphs and bear their defeats.

So while the old cliches are superficial and distorted, most of them carry a grain of truth in my opinion. That’s why they became cliches in the first place. To abandon them all together is throwing out the baby with the bathwater and we will all be much the poorer for it. In fact I would say our way of life would be doomed."

174

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?

175

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.

176

[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.

177

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
All this talk and there still isn’t a clear definition of what exactly is ‘masculine.’

At best, the consensus seems to be, “Stuff that’s generally admirable,” yet the majority of those admirable traits mentioned so far equally apply to admirable women of history.

Can we do a little bit better, here? Or are we satisfied with implying that admirable women are in fact masculine?

[/quote]

I think the best way to put it is to say that masculine men are simply good people, period. So masculinity is really just a man being a good person and femininity is just a woman being a good person.

Of course, now we have to define what being a good person is…

178

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]Antonio. B wrote:
Man is masculine when he dominates the world, his family, when woman obeys to him… also man is masculine when he is mentally and physically ready for a combat, for survival… wether he is heavyweight powerlifter build like or middle weight boxer… doesn’t really matter… Too bad, civilization forces a lot of men to become mentally and physically useful only for licking clitoris of western feminist ladies… Going to a gym and pumping those muscles usually is just a butaphorical masculinity which even looks funny… [/quote]

Except this is the exact problem with the definitions of masculinity in this thread. They all seem to have an underlying theme of this childish cliche ideal of “being a manly man man”.

Contrary to what some guys here like to believe, none of you are dominant over the world. Shit you’re not even dominant in your immediate daily life, whether you like it or not you ARE submissive in several relationships, otherwise society would not function at all. Try to “be the Alpha Male bro” on your boss and you will quickly find yourself out of a job. Try to be dominant over some dude you don’t know, and you will probably get a fucking beating.

Your family? Sure, but unless you plan on imparting your children with some serious father issues, you will find yourself bending to their will at several points in their life naturally. And that’s not even a bad thing, but probably rather a necessity in their development as individuals.

Your woman? Yeah okay, it’s perfectly fine as a male to be the dominant partner in the relationship and most heterosexual women prefer it that way I’d wager. But lmao if you’re expecting her to “obey” you constantly I’d suggest you are either abusive or she isn’t very intelligent. Again if you want a healthy relationship you’d probably find yourself coming to an agreement or otherwise conceding on certain issues, like y’know, normal socially healthy people do. Unless you are one of those borderline autistic PUA lameasses who perceive any disagreement with them by a women as them losing their “alpha” status and have to ask their fellow autists how an “alpha” male would handle it.

Built for combat, built for survival? Kind of a moot point if you’re living in a well off society as most here are. How many of you really know how to survive in the wilderness? Wouldn’t it be more relevant to know how to be better off in society RIGHT NOW?

Really no one has come up with any clear definition of masculinity and why men today supposedly don’t have it. Mostly it just seems to border on “lol that guy dresses like a fag so hes not a manly man”[/quote]

THIS!!!

Being masculine requires flexibility and the ability to understand when acquiescence is a virtue and when it is not. And the decision to acquiesce is not based solely on what it does for YOU, the man, but what it does for those around you as well.

I was at a football game recently and some fucking drunk started talking all sorts of shit to me and, quite frankly, I wanted to pound the shit out of him. I definitely could have, considering how drunk he was.

Did I do so? Of course not. I walked away, which many “men” in this thread would call a bitch move. Did I stand up for myself? Not really, I just ignored him for the most part, even with a couple of Niners fans egging me on and clearly on my side should the shit go down and get ugly. Did I feel a bit emasculated? Sure.

But think about it. I’m a teacher. One arrest for assault or battery or any other remotely violent crime, which is what I would have been charged with had I just fucking decked the guy without him presenting some sort of physical threat to me (which he wasn’t since he was just spouting off a bunch of instigatory bullshit) and I’m out of a job. Well, one conviction and I’m out of a job. But I can’t take that sort of risk to my career and I’m certainly not going to take that sort of risk for a piece of shit like him.

So I guess you could say I submitted or whatever by simply walking away. And that’s really what being a “man” is about to me. All this bullshit about being dominant and so forth is for fucking children, which is exactly what whoever said that to begin with is. He’s a child.

Thinking that way is nothing more than letting your ego run your life for you, and a masculine man does not let his ego run his life for him. There are certain times when a man has to sacrifice the health of his own ego at that moment. It’s called “rising above it” or “preparing for the future” or whatever. That whole machismo/ego thing is fucking gangbanger mentality, which is about as non-masculine a mentality as someone can have.

How many people are sitting in prison right now because they were slaves to their ego? Sure, they showed that motherfucker who’s boss, but for what? They’re sitting in prison with knowledge that they handled the fucker who “disrespected” them, while the disrespectful motherfucker who got his teeth smashed in or whatever is sitting at home with his wife and kids still able to provide for them.

Of course, this all goes out the window when it means protecting your family or whatever. But at that point you aren’t protecting your ego from something that represents a threat to it; you’re protecting your family from something represents a threat to IT.

179

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:

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

[/quote]

Excellent point, Elegua.

As a woman I would like to suggest that the woman is a version of the man.
A more fragile version of the man.

I experience the male force as something that when properly exercised, it is a force I am naturally inclined to surrender to.

So I would say that yes, women can exhibit those characteristics and even take over if necessary but it is expressed in a complementary role to the male.
The female make up is much more delicate - even for the strongest women, compared to the strongest males: they are more delicate.

The man is the ultra half and the woman is the missing piece.

Feminism has poisoned true masculinity.
Feminism has killed true femininity.

Male and female are not created equal, they have the same equity.

Understand what that means and you will find happiness in your role, whether feminine or masculine.

In the presence of true masculinity women do know their place and operate as a complementary role.

I would say even in her most pro active, women are primarily a receptive force, whereas the male is an active force, as the primary expression of his being, his manhood.

Man do thrive when they take the lead, even if it is the woman who is truly leading but from behind; backing him up, complementing him in that way as opposed to being perceived as being “behind” as “second class” or unimportant.

The perception is the problem. They are not equal but both have the same equity; same value in their complementary roles.

The expression of her “masculine traits” becomes simply perceived as the strength of her femininity because what defines her as a woman is how she uses those qualities in a complementary role to the male.

The woman is the female version of the man. And of course as a version it will have the inherent qualities of the other model.
The expression of “strong” qualities in the female version is fine tuned for a different role.

And it is only natural she would be able to reflect his qualities back to him, to be a mirror of his qualities.

Feminine strength through cooperation instead of competition.

When the so called “strong, independent women” use these qualities in competition with the male force, she weakens herself, his self and the world of their offspring.

Female force can be active as well as receptive but it is always to be complementary to the male not independent of the male force.

180

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]Antonio. B wrote:
Man is masculine when he dominates the world, his family, when woman obeys to him… also man is masculine when he is mentally and physically ready for a combat, for survival… wether he is heavyweight powerlifter build like or middle weight boxer… doesn’t really matter… Too bad, civilization forces a lot of men to become mentally and physically useful only for licking clitoris of western feminist ladies… Going to a gym and pumping those muscles usually is just a butaphorical masculinity which even looks funny… [/quote]

Except this is the exact problem with the definitions of masculinity in this thread. They all seem to have an underlying theme of this childish cliche ideal of “being a manly man man”.

Contrary to what some guys here like to believe, none of you are dominant over the world. Shit you’re not even dominant in your immediate daily life, whether you like it or not you ARE submissive in several relationships, otherwise society would not function at all. Try to “be the Alpha Male bro” on your boss and you will quickly find yourself out of a job. Try to be dominant over some dude you don’t know, and you will probably get a fucking beating.

Your family? Sure, but unless you plan on imparting your children with some serious father issues, you will find yourself bending to their will at several points in their life naturally. And that’s not even a bad thing, but probably rather a necessity in their development as individuals.

Your woman? Yeah okay, it’s perfectly fine as a male to be the dominant partner in the relationship and most heterosexual women prefer it that way I’d wager. But lmao if you’re expecting her to “obey” you constantly I’d suggest you are either abusive or she isn’t very intelligent. Again if you want a healthy relationship you’d probably find yourself coming to an agreement or otherwise conceding on certain issues, like y’know, normal socially healthy people do. Unless you are one of those borderline autistic PUA lameasses who perceive any disagreement with them by a women as them losing their “alpha” status and have to ask their fellow autists how an “alpha” male would handle it.

Built for combat, built for survival? Kind of a moot point if you’re living in a well off society as most here are. How many of you really know how to survive in the wilderness? Wouldn’t it be more relevant to know how to be better off in society RIGHT NOW?

Really no one has come up with any clear definition of masculinity and why men today supposedly don’t have it. Mostly it just seems to border on “lol that guy dresses like a fag so hes not a manly man”[/quote]

Hey, I do understand why you interpret this way… However, when I sad “dominating the world” I meant men in general are dominating power over women… like it’s in nature when it functions well. You can also belong to a big corporation with many bosses, or military brigade, be submissive performer, and not losing your dignity at the same time, quite the opposite - earning respect… there is no boss in the world who is allowed to humiliate you… you can also change your job, be your own boss etc. As for women, wise normal women should never compete with man, woman complement man… she obeys in order to create harmony, she obeys because she loves, a woman creates warmth and comfort, that is why women used to have special respect and praise… nowadays I meet less and less such women… Men have become pussies because they concentrate way too much how to adapt to this perverted world which is getting worse and worse and abnormal, rather than doing something to change it…