Where are all the real men? :cold: (1 Viewer)

[inasero]

I guess what I associate masculinity with is the glorification of personal power, particularly physical and the domination of others.

Also the idea of never showing weakness, consideration or emotion.

These are not good things, for the soul, or society.

Please enlighten me on what masculinity means to you, and why it is good.

If you think those are the defining features of masculinity I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken and it'll be difficult to argue on common grounds. As HNXAXR said, any characteristic taken to the extreme can be a bad thing. We shouldn't associate masculinity with misogynisism, violence, exploitation etc.

At the same time there are the examples I listed as features (not necessarily exclusive, mind you) I would consider to represent true masculinity. The fact that we have real difficulty in defining what it means to be a man is a sad commentary on the state of society, and the pervasive influence of postmodern, rational humanistic ideologies.

 

[Iron]

I'd say that, at its core, masculinity is about winning

 

[Captain Hero]

I think Dr Patel is just upset he can't find the *right* ladyboy: I.E one to do crystal meth with and then claim 'satan gave him the gay'.

 

[_dhj_]

If you think those are the defining features of masculinity I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken and it'll be difficult to argue on common grounds. As HNXAXR said, any characteristic taken to the extreme can be a bad thing. We shouldn't associate masculinity with misogynisism, violence, exploitation etc.

At the same time there are the examples I listed as features (not necessarily exclusive, mind you) I would consider to represent true masculinity. The fact that we have real difficulty in defining what it means to be a man is a sad commentary on the state of society, and the pervasive influence of postmodern, rational humanistic ideologies.

Social roles evolve, values evolve. What it means to be masculine depends on what the present state of sociology, technology and science requires. Notions of masculinity existed because they were convenient for reinforcing and encouraging certain forms of societal specialisation. Certain jobs required strength, and men are physiologically more adapted to fulfilling these roles. But to the extent that these roles are superseded by technology, and I say to the extent because they are not yet fully, the concept of masculinity has evolved.

By the way the 'traditional' concept of masculinity has never been absolutely 'natural' or 'intrinsic' to what it is to be a man. It was inculcated in youth from birth - hunting, fighting, playing with toy soldiers and toy guns etc. (these are just some trivial examples).

 

[Silver Persian]

Social roles evolve, values evolve. What it means to be masculine depends on what the present state of sociology, technology and science requires. Notions of masculinity existed because they were convenient for reinforcing and encouraging certain forms of societal specialisation. Certain jobs required strength, and men are physiologically more adapted to fulfilling these roles. But to the extent that these roles are superseded by technology, and I say to the extent because they are not yet fully, the concept of masculinity has evolved.

By the way the 'traditional' concept of masculinity has never been absolutely 'natural' or 'intrinsic' to what it is to be a man. It was inculcated in youth from birth - hunting, fighting, playing with toy soldiers and toy guns etc. (these are just some trivial examples).

+1

 

[sam04u]

I recently had a talk with my younger male sibling, who has taken an interest in things of a feminine nature, ie;(fairies, princesses and mermaids).

I blame Disney, but that's irrelevant. The talk was in the form of a story involving a village in danger, and the males of the village who are naturally, the physical superiors, having to take up the roles of warriors in these troubling times and also of the danger of emasculated men on which the rest of the village would normally have relied on.

I explained that the male, has natural instinct, physical superiority, and the ability to act in otherwise petrifying situations. And as such should be the warriors in the society, in the home, and in war.

I don't mean a warrior brandishing a sword, and standing amidst a bloody field. Nay, I mean a warrior, who can make decisions, self sacrifice, and act in a way to protect his brethren and comrades at all times.

 

[HNAKXR]

By the way the 'traditional' concept of masculinity has never been absolutely 'natural' or 'intrinsic' to what it is to be a man. It was inculcated in youth from birth - hunting, fighting, playing with toy soldiers and toy guns etc. (these are just some trivial examples).

i am usually on the nurture side of these arguments, but arguing this is just ridiculous.

characteristics pertaining to being a man are a product of social conditioning?

 

[sam04u]

i am usually on the nurture side of these arguments, but arguing this is just ridiculous.

It's a bit of both. Have you ever seen a Lion behind glass at a Zoo, or locked in a cage? All their natural instincts are suppressed. No longer does the female have to track or hunt food. No longer does the male have to protect the pride from danger. No longer do the cubs have to learn to follow in the paw prints of their elders, and learn their natural roles. No longer does the pride have to work in the way which benefits them all, but rather they do just fine individually.

Forgive me though for thinking that a Lion in a Zoo is a lesser animal than a wild Lion in the Serengeti.

 

[Silver Persian]

i am usually on the nurture side of these arguments, but arguing this is just ridiculous.

characteristics pertaining to being a man are a product of social conditioning?

In sociological terms, all the characteristics of being a man (physically, biologically) are a product of dna

all the characteristics of being masculine (behavioural, how a culture "sees" men) are conditioned

 

[Silver Persian]

I recently had a talk with my younger male sibling, who has taken an interest in things of a feminine nature, ie;(fairies, princesses and mermaids).

I blame Disney, but that's irrelevant. The talk was in the form of a story involving a village in danger, and the males of the village who are naturally, the physical superiors, having to take up the roles of warriors in these troubling times and also of the danger of emasculated men on which the rest of the village would normally have relied on.

I explained that the male, has natural instinct, physical superiority, and the ability to act in otherwise petrifying situations. And as such should be the warriors in the society, in the home, and in war.

I don't mean a warrior brandishing a sword, and standing amidst a bloody field. Nay, I mean a warrior, who can make decisions, self sacrifice, and act in a way to protect his brethren and comrades at all times.

If you aren't talking about brandishing a sword, why can women not make decisions, be self sacrificing and protect their brethren?

 

[Captain Hero]

If you aren't talking about brandishing a sword, why can women not make decisions, be self sacrificing and protect their brethren?

Because they're women, you idiot.

 

[Empyrean444]

I dont see the alternative. If youre trying to conserve the institutions fundamental to the good life, you need solid grounding in truth; God is essential. Otherwise it's just castles in clouds my irritating friend

But institutions fundamental to the good life were (in different forms) around before your God was created (or, as you would put it, recognised by Pagans or released into the world) - Most nations and all empires prior to the later Roman empire, which maintained strong institutions, were not driven by the Almighty himself, but rather by other religions or, in the case of the earlier Roman Empire, by imperialism/nationalism [i recognise this is the use of a modern term to describe something ancient].

For that matter, these things which also predated god also had relative conceptions of right/wrong. If this is the case, then god is merely an accessory to the real thing rather than its basis.

 

[Iron]

...Are you expecting a response to the assertion that God is man-made?

 

[Empyrean444]

...Are you expecting a response to the assertion that God is man-made?

This is a viable assumption on my part to make. But even if he isn't God made, your saying that all institutions come from god is really has very little solid factual grounding - it is but a possibility. I don't really think this is a viable basis for the running of a country. My point is that, if you like, institutions/right and wrong concepts have operated ere his teachings (in the very least) were known or used.

 

[Iron]

Oh, ok!

 

[Silver Persian]

Because they're women, you idiot.

oh right

 

[mr_brightside]

tarp tiem

 

[Pacchiru]

tarp tiem

sexy time.

 

[KFunk]

Has anybody else been bothered by the gradual decline in masculine identity and values in recent times? I'm talking about things like adventure, ambition, resilience, ruggedness and leadership.

If you think those are the defining features of masculinity I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken and it'll be difficult to argue on common grounds. As HNXAXR said, any characteristic taken to the extreme can be a bad thing. We shouldn't associate masculinity with misogynisism, violence, exploitation etc.

At the same time there are the examples I listed as features (not necessarily exclusive, mind you) I would consider to represent true masculinity. The fact that we have real difficulty in defining what it means to be a man is a sad commentary on the state of society, and the pervasive influence of postmodern, rational humanistic ideologies.

I'll have my rational humanistic ideology any day. Why can't we have more than one type of male? Allow the sensitive and introspective to exist alongside the rugged and neolithic. And at the same time, why not allow females the same range of gender identity?

I think it's silly to pigeon hole a sex either way. Let people take their gender in whatever direction they damn well please. I'm not sure why, but gender conservatism has always really irked me.

 

[Graney]

Also, there have always been weak, feminine and sexually confused men. Maybe they are just more noticeable now because instead of being marginalized or just killed like in the past they are more accepted.

Agreed, it's fantastic there's increasing tolerance of all individuals embracing and expressing themselves along the continuity of masculine to feminine, enabling individuals to be true to themselves and ultimately happier.

There perhaps is a crisis in masculinity, but not in the way Inasero thinks. Go out on the town any given saturday night and you'll find no shortage of macho bogan fucks, spoiling for a drink, a fight and a root.

I'd think it more appropriate to frame it as a crisis of values, love and respect. A community minded spirit is what is lacking, if anything. I don't think it's helpfull at all, to set up this dichotomy of there being specific mens roles, responsibilities and values, and seperate womens issues. The concerns and responsibilities of the community are best shared equally and tackled by both genders. Gender should be pretty much irrelavent in all things.