Jump to content

Modern Masculinity


Recommended Posts

Yeah, probably.

'Bedwetter' in the sense of someone who pisses their pants on the internet whenever they feel threatened rather than someone 'bed wetting'

Given the rates of bullying to outright murder of people who'd fit under the needlessly pejorative label " sexually confused", I can sympathize with said persons getting more than a little annoyed when people try to paint them as cancers afflicting society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was aimed at the "balls shrivelled up to my armpits," "man is warrior" crowd than people with actual, real issues. After seeing the utter failure of others trying to reason with that mind set using long words and fact based evidence, I thought it might be funner just to use shorter, more insulting words.



And "cancers afflicting society"? Behave. I didn't say anything like that, did I.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hrm. When my father died, my mother avoided getting remarried, or even dating, because she didn't want anyone else interfering with how she raised her kids -- two sons. I guess she's guilty of abuse. You can tell by how my brother and I turned into career criminals.





Ah, maybe there was some confusion on my part.



When I saw "sexually confused" I thought it was a signifier for LGBT.





I think on this board, "sexually confused" is an insult more likely to be leveled at someone who is putatively hetero. ;)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was raised by a single mother and turned out fine.



(I don't deny that there is a vague correlation between single-mother households and sons growing up to be dysfunctional later in life, but there's also many other factors - poverty, unemployment, drug use, etc. All those things also correlate with single mothers. Correlation=/=causation, and all that. All of these things are so intertwined that you can't pick out a single one and say "that's the source of the problem!")



Borsabil's ham-fisted argument isn't entirely without a point - a lot of children do need authority figures of their own gender. I was raised almost entirely by my mother, although I did have several male role models in my life. Obviously, the parents are your first go-to role models in your life, although it doesn't have to be them. If I were raised by lesbians, I seriously doubt I'd have turned out differently.






Threads like these don't half bring out the sexually confused bedwetter contingent eh





Yes, everyone who disagrees with you must be a sexually confused bedwetter with mental issues.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, parenting is so time-consuming and exhausting that even two parents barely seems adequate. In response, I've been proposing expanding our marriage into a stable polyamorous triad.



ETA: A joke, no offense to actual polyamorous triads, which, more power to 'em.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, parenting is so time-consuming and exhausting that even two parents barely seems adequate. In response, I've been proposing expanding our marriage into a stable polyamorous triad.

ETA: A joke, no offense to actual polyamorous triads, which, more power to 'em.

Just make sure you get some himbos with nice ass-cleavage.

Eh, probably good to make sure they work well with kids too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just make sure you get some himbos with nice ass-cleavage.

Eh, probably good to make sure they work well with kids too...

This after your posts on how to choose pants that will show off your ass, and male lingerie. Are you sure you're only 5% gay?

...and are you good with kids?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This after your posts on how to choose pants that will show off your ass, and male lingerie. Are you sure you're only 5% gay?

What's hilarious about asking me this right now is I'm listening to D.I.S.C.O. by The Young Professionals...

eta:

On the kids thing - kids love me, but I lack some of the other characteristics I mentioned...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't sell yourself short, Sci. You might have just the right kind of modern masculinity to turn a hetero marriage into a sucessful MMF polyamorous triad. If your cunnilingus kung-fu is strong and you can whip up a good Saag Paneer, you'll pass muster with Mrs. Sore.



ETA: Mods - notice how I worked the thread title into this post? Not a thread-jack!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it tremendously sad that for some men, or maybe even a lot of men, the definition of masculinity is inseparable from the capacity to do violence and to dominate others. I recognize the role of violence in our lives, and I accept it in many cases (I support capital punishment, I support military interventions where needed, I support complete de-regulation of all fire arms), but I reject the proposal that it needs to be an integral part of defining masculinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it tremendously sad that for some men, or maybe even a lot of men, the definition of masculinity is inseparable from the capacity to do violence and to dominate others...

Evidently we suffer from a lack of variety among our role models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it tremendously sad that for some men, or maybe even a lot of men, the definition of masculinity is inseparable from the capacity to do violence and to dominate others. I recognize the role of violence in our lives, and I accept it in many cases (I support capital punishment, I support military interventions where needed, I support complete de-regulation of all fire arms), but I reject the proposal that it needs to be an integral part of defining masculinity.

Can't the definition of masculinity contain negative traits as well as positive? If we limit the definitions of masculinity and femininity to positive traits for individuals, we might well end up with two identical lists, i.e., the things we would like men and women (or just people) to be. If we say that masculinity includes the urge to exert the will externally, and femininity includes the tendency to sublimate the will, we have a useful contrast that could be used to critique either or both of these roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't sell yourself short, Sci. You might have just the right kind of modern masculinity to turn a hetero marriage into a sucessful MMF polyamorous triad. If your cunnilingus kung-fu is strong and you can whip up a good Saag Paneer, you'll pass muster with Mrs. Sore.

ETA: Mods - notice how I worked the thread title into this post? Not a thread-jack!

If Mrs. Sore passes, I could use a third. My son's almost grown, so it could be a short term contract. Or part-time maybe. I'll share, I ain't stingy. Sci already knows I have a huge board crush on him and his manties.

I find it tremendously sad that for some men, or maybe even a lot of men, the definition of masculinity is inseparable from the capacity to do violence and to dominate others. I recognize the role of violence in our lives, and I accept it in many cases (I support capital punishment, I support military interventions where needed, I support complete de-regulation of all fire arms), but I reject the proposal that it needs to be an integral part of defining masculinity.

How about openly competitive. I understand the trait being presented, but trying to define it without using violence as an example is difficult. I am certainly not saying that women aren't competitive. I have found the propensity for open one-upmanship does seem to be more prevalent in men and boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my question is, will we ever get to the point where a woman could be called masculine or a man called feminine and have that register as praise, or a simply a non value-laden descriptor?



If it's an insult to call a male feminine (or effeminate), we're making a value-judgement about femininity and calling it undesirable. If it's an insult to call a female masculine, then we're also deeming masculinity undesirable. The only way to argue with this is to admit a double standard, that is to say these traits are good, but only when embodied by the "right" gender.



So what's the ideal? Masculine men, feminine women, and some misfits to be tolerated by society? Or should we be actively encouraging a certain "balance"- of women cultivating some degree of masculinity, and men likewise cultivating a degree of femininity?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's disputable that Bill Gates is, on a primal biological level, less masculine than Ah-nuld.

Of course, testosterone count and physical strength isn't the be-all and end-all of everything - Gates has several other skills that have made him a successful billionaire, making him an evolutionary winner in his context. In a "survival of the fittest" sense, it's obvious that Gates' skills are "fitter" for a modern industrial society, while Arnie's are "fitter" for the Stone Age environment that humans originally evolved for.

We, as a species, have been outrun by our civilization. Technological innovation has progressed much faster than our evolution as a species. (Look at the gender roles debate, for example - it all comes down to the fact that gender roles are still ingrained in us for real evolutionary reasons, yet we now live in a post-gender modern world.) In a sense, we're Stone Age monkeys with computers.

I don't disagree with the evo-psych perspective on this.

I think Free Northman was rather talking about personal day-to-day survival in a post-apocalypse. But yeah, the flaw in his argument is what you pointed out.

Survival of the fittest means that the fittest collective (the Freys) will prevail, not the fittest individual organism (Greatjon).

I'm getting in a little late to this conversation and I apologize if someone already replied, but I had to say a few things here:

1. Would Arnold really have been that much better adapted to a paleolithic lifestyle? I imagine all those muscles would require a lot of calories, something that isn't always in ready supply and the extra weight wouldn't have helped in the long distance slogs that most hunts seemed to have been. I guess you could argue that Caveman Arnold would have been a lot leaner, but still very strong and well adapted?

2. Are people talking about macaroons or macarons? They're different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...