Being a Man
Hi Guys,
I am going to take a wild stab and guess that the male demographic of contributors on this forum are like me: youngish, humanities-educated, and nerdy. (If I am wrong please let me know!)
This is a question about masculinity. Nowadays the "John Wayne" image of the "strong silent" type of man is viewed as being regressive and borderline toxic. And hell: I've never been that; all through high school I was nerdy, non-sporty, and obscure AF. However, due to the working class background of my family, and because of genes that have given me an ironically massive body, I have always had a very strong sense of manhood.
I will briefly summarise the "man code" as it has been handed down to me.
(I am not suggesting that women are not capable of these things. I have met women in my life that embody these attributes a lot better than I ever can. This is a comment on societal expectations.)
As a man you should not complain too loudly about difficulty or pain, you should expect hardship and bear the burden, you should never use your physical strength to harm those weaker than you, you should use your strength to help those weaker than you, you should be the first to volunteer, et al.
We (male audience, although women very interested to hear opinion) will have different versions of roughly the same code.
My question is this: do you think that this version of masculinity has a place in the modern world?
I am going to take a wild stab and guess that the male demographic of contributors on this forum are like me: youngish, humanities-educated, and nerdy. (If I am wrong please let me know!)
This is a question about masculinity. Nowadays the "John Wayne" image of the "strong silent" type of man is viewed as being regressive and borderline toxic. And hell: I've never been that; all through high school I was nerdy, non-sporty, and obscure AF. However, due to the working class background of my family, and because of genes that have given me an ironically massive body, I have always had a very strong sense of manhood.
I will briefly summarise the "man code" as it has been handed down to me.
(I am not suggesting that women are not capable of these things. I have met women in my life that embody these attributes a lot better than I ever can. This is a comment on societal expectations.)
As a man you should not complain too loudly about difficulty or pain, you should expect hardship and bear the burden, you should never use your physical strength to harm those weaker than you, you should use your strength to help those weaker than you, you should be the first to volunteer, et al.
We (male audience, although women very interested to hear opinion) will have different versions of roughly the same code.
My question is this: do you think that this version of masculinity has a place in the modern world?
Comments (209)
Ironically, I've noticed this Wayne-ism all the time just lately.
If it means something to you, sure. Otherwise, it shouldn't be a huge problem I don't think.
Rudyard Kipling describe "what a man should be", I kinda like it, even if it is probably impossible to fulfill:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
:wink:
Toxic Masculinity is derivative of Fragile Masculinity.
I used to monitor an internet Conservative safe space; a place where “men” could go to whine, and cry, and bitch with impunity. These men fancy themselves strong, and wise. The moderators and administrators ban anyone who is liberal, and who dares to stand on his hind legs; giving as good as he gets.
Back when there was a national discussion about “toxic masculinity”, I found their bitching to be unseemly, un-manly. Initially, it made me feel embarrassed for them. But I got over that. Anyway, I penned the following back then:
Strong cannot complain about weak, and wise cannot complain about stupid. It’s impossible.
An indicator of Toxic Masculinity is a self-identified strong man complaining about what he perceives to be weakness.
An indicator of Toxic Masculinity is a self-identified wise man complaining about what he perceives to be stupidity.
An indicator of Toxic Masculinity is a self-described “man” complaining.
A real man won’t complain, not even in the privacy of a safe space, among his peers; peers he likes, but who might also be complaining.
One might ask: Does my assessment run afoul of the notion that a man should not suppress his feelings, or turn his feelings inward, where they might manifest themselves in stress, health problems, addiction; or release as anger or cruelty toward others?
No. Because a real man doesn’t *try* to not complain. He doesn’t have to try. A real man doesn’t complain because he is truly strong, he is truly wise, he has broad shoulders, he has deep empathy for others, *especially* the weak and stupid, and, most important of all, he is humble. He is all this, because life has taught him how weak and stupid, he truly is; and he learned that lesson.
So, the next time you and the boys are sitting around bitching and laughing about women, or the skinny-jeaned, bearded, latte-drinking, limp-wristed liberal stranger with the Che tee shirt; that is when you look for the man who’s not joining in your cliquish bullying. Look for the man who is not judging you and the boys for being the way you are; not judging you for exhibiting your weakness and stupidity; not judging you for your humanity. Look for the man who might not even be there with you.
But look for him. Find his burden, shoulder some of it, STFU, embrace the suck, and lean in to it; not because you are trying to be a real man, but because you truly love to help. You especially love to help those who are not as strong or as smart as you and the “real men” who complain about them.
As a strong, wise man, you have nothing to fear from the truly weak and stupid. If they are your burden, then you don’t complain about them; you carry them, like a man. To do otherwise is to be a bully. That is Toxic Masculinity.
This may be an ideal that few can achieve, but it’s not really an achievement. It’s a way of heart. It’s doing your best, and better. It’s knowing what to look for in examples you want to follow. And examples to set for sons and daughters. It’s knowing no one is perfect, especially yourself.
It’s not merely physical bullying. There are countless professors across this nation who have an understanding of the Socratic Method, and yet they fail to live up to it. The two most important and overlooked aspects of the Method are these: 1. You must understand how little you know; and, 2. Your curiosity must be genuine; because logic weaponized ceases to be logic. Without these two crucial ingredients, the world is left with many self-identified “wise men” hating on self-identified “strong men” as weak and stupid. This is in addition to many self-identified “strong men” hating on “self-identified “wise men” as weak and stupid. Both sides are correct in their assessments of the other, but they are wrong for the hating.
This brings me to the truths which I often find counter-intuitive. I rarely look for “strong and wise” in locations where people tell me they can be found (especially people who self-identify as strong and/or wise). I look instead for those people who carry the load in silence, and love it. And often times I find those people don’t have dicks.
Those on top of the pyramid who continue to look up, or out, are worthy of my shoulders to stand upon, and I will allow them to stand there, and I will try to boost them even further. They have a grace and gratitude worthy of my support.
Those who look down, however, can support me with their rotting carcass, for all I care. I have no problem stepping on and over them. I just struggle to refrain from complaining about them because, really, there is no difference between bitching and being a bitch.
This is where I struggle with learning how to love my enemy. That's another step on the journey.
Yeah, no kidding...
You're wrong. About me, in any case. About age, in any case.
If we are to use actors who played cowboys, or cowboy characters, as examples of masculinity, I'd choose Richard Boone as Paladin in the old TV show Have Gun. Will Travel. A hired gun or mercenary, and therefore dangerous when necessary, but urbane, well-read, sophisticated, and with a sense of justice.
I don't think it ever occupied a place in the modern world except as a fashionable – and yes "toxic" – archetype. Raised 'urban working-class' mostly in the 1970s by a supremely able and loving mother but without a father, "being a man" has come to mean this to me:
I imagine "being a woman" is very similar. It's a standard to strive to live up to, I think, rather than a stereotype with which to disguise / straitjacket our socialized neuroses, inadequacies and anxieties; unfortunately, the latter is more often the case than not, mostly as occupational hazards (re: e.g. cops, prisoners, firemen, soldiers, construction workers, surgeons, bankers-financiers, athletes, coaches, politicians, gangsters, cowboys, farmers, etc).
I remember watching him (probably in re-runs) but I suspect you are a hair older than me. I grew up on the 50s, 60s and 70s TV Westerns, but I found my home and came of age with the man with no name, Sergio Leone and spaghetti westerns. I'll still squint with Clint on occasion. I've got Ennio Morricone all over my play lists. LOL!
I liked Paladin's business card. Wire San Francisco. The only better one was the most interesting man in the world, which simply said: "I'll call you."
I grew up in a working class family too; I'm gay and felt like an outsider in my small rural hometown. What it meant "to be a man" was a conflicted issue, though as I got older that resolved.
Hyper-masculinity and hyper-femininity exist but probably are not all that desirable as goals. Most men fall along the mid-line of masculine behavior and appearance--whether they are gay or straight. There are class differences in ideal types. There are a lot of ways one can slice and dice the population and a lot of these sortitions are valid. My idea of "A Real Man" is a male who has become an adult (characterized by features like: grown-up behavior, responsibility, reasonably conscientious, reasonably reflective, reasonably well informed about the world...) Beyond that there is a wide range of options available.
The Man with No Name certainly must be taken into account.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is of course a classic, but of Eastwood's Western films I particularly enjoyed High Plains Drifter for its oddness and Eastwood's portrayal of its mysterious anti-hero.
Have Gun. Will Travel was also a radio show. You can hear it on Sirius/XM Radio Classics.
This version of masculinity has a place among those who think such a thing as masculinity exists as a set of behavioral attributes grounded in biology. I suppose it also has a place among those who think that it is just an arbitrary set of features someone pieced together from traditional cultural assumptions, and that an almost infinite number of alternatives could work just as well.
What is it like to be David Packman?
I know almost as much about what it's like to be a bat as what it's like to be a man. It sounds like the kind of question to pose to a focus group in pitching a new style of disposable razor. My own intuition is just to get on with it and be.
They seem to have grown up and joined this forum.
I told that group of boys about a friend who was farmer on a small acreage, a rough-and-ready man of few words. We were talking about the book Real Men Don't Eat Quiche - so this conversation was forty yers ago. My friend's only comment was "Real men eat what they fuckin' like".
:up:
New Yorker Cartoon caption (below sketch of 2 guys chatting)
Last summer I tried using prostitutes and found it surprisingly affordable.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/leo-terrell-advises-caitlyn-jenner-to-run-like-a-trump-republican-in-bid-for-california-governor
:rofl:
Right on, man! :lol: :up:
Quoting BigThoughtDropper
For me, it’s only the focus on actuality (observable/measurable reality) that differentiates your description from what is often expected from women (by men). A ‘good woman’ should not complain too loudly about potentially difficult or painful situations. She should bear the burden of emotional or circumstantial hardship. She should never use her capacity to make anyone feel less capable, and should instead use her capacity to build on the strength and ability of others. She should always be prepared to help without needing to be asked or acknowledged.
I don’t want to draw attention away from the core discussion here - I just found this an interesting parallel.
The difference is the presumption that physical strength is a male characteristic, emotional strength, feminine. Was that your intent?
Suppose I re-phrased the OP:
Quoting BigThoughtDropper
against
Quoting Possibility
Is there something amiss here?
It does highlight that presumption, doesn’t it? The use of ‘physical’ and ‘emotional’ probably aren’t even necessary. But it also highlights the question of potency.
Suppose we further altered the OP:
Quoting BigThoughtDropper
The last phrase I still think is focused on an observable/measurable reality - specifically evidence of potency. Why does someone need to be the first to volunteer? If you’re second or third, what does that mean?
What distinguishes "this version of masculinity" is an emphasis on physicality.
Sure, let it "have a place"; but it's mundane, somewhat anachronistic, and needlessly restricting. So let's not commend it.
I think this is key. Much of what makes hero archetypes toxic in modern society is nothing to do with the virtues they exemplify but the way in which they're measured. If I say "head North", the degree to which you've complied is not measured by how far north you have got, but rather by the relationship between where you are now and where you were.
We tend to think that we need to transcend humanity. Focusing on beings that potentially are higher on the evolutionary ladder than us. Perhaps we can learn a lot from descending. Why did the birds survive and not the dinosaurs?
Compassion as a survival mechanism is what our spiritual leaders do. The Dalai Lama, The Pope etc.
We simply mirror their lifestyles which are based on the life & teachings of the Buddha, the Christ. In that regard the fool and the sage are the same. They both need to adapt to survive.
Quoting Possibility
Volunteering boosts your social status. Especially if you're the first one.
I've actually found that by saving someone else people save themselves.
:100: Not that I live up to that (far from it), but :100:
As @BigThoughtDropper said in the OP, this is a comment on societal expectations. I think it’s not so much that we’re ‘built’ to endure (or that men are ‘built’ to act?), it’s more that we’re expected to.
Not how I’d put it, but I agree. I thought it was an honest place to start the discussion, though. This version of masculinity does have a ‘place’, whether we ‘let it’ have one or not. Recognising its limitations enables one to transcend it.
I have to draw attention to social change, education, and Star Trek. If you can, watch the original Star Trek and the Second Generation Star Trek. As you said Captain Kirk is the John Wayne of outer space. Captain Picard is not! This is the result of a change in education that has manifested as social change.
Until 1958 we educated for independent thinking. That gets you the John Wayne role model. In 1958 we began education for a technology society with unknown values and "group think" because it is best for the rapid advancement of technology. This is clearly demonstrated with Picard and his crew.
We might realize what is happening today is the result of the change in education.
To answer your question. I am very much in favor of men being men and women being women. :grin:
An interesting thought, but how responsible is the egoless, person? What can of leader will this person be? As we argue about communism, socialism, or capitalism we might consider the leadership personality of each, and the economic advantages or disadvantages. Would the egoless person be the best captain for our ship?
How might honor and pride play into what is good about being human?
Hum, what would we want in a captain of the ship or a captain of industry? Bill Gates is a take-charge person and he has accomplished a lot. We might not like how he got to the top, but we have all benefited from what he accomplished.
The Dalai Lama is very different from Bill Gates, and for all the good of his leadership, I don't think his leadership would lead to a high standard of living with schools and hospitals and the industry for a strong economy.
I think it should. But manhood is a question of maturity as much as it is masculinity. In an infantilizing society one can get away without both.
I did not address this before. You might be right as a general principle. I don't know. But as for me, I'm older, humanities-educated, and kind of nerdy. But I've been around the horn and over seas, I've had over 34 different jobs last count, and virtually all of those were outside and in work that is generally viewed as "masculine", tough, and physically demanding. Whether or not any of that is the true me, I don't know, but I don't think so. I think there's a little boy in there somewhere that was lead astray early on. I'm circling back around, but I do think it's important to put some bark on.
Those who go through life blaming others for making them feel are victims of their own mental illness. Whether or not the rest of us should be sensitive to the suffering of the mentally ill is a matter of 1. Knowledge, and 2. Reasonableness. Do we know, or should we know of this person’s mental illness? What knowledge are we reasonably charged with? And are the steps required to avoid upsetting the ill person reasonable steps? Or can we just allow the mentally ill to suffer? It's an individual and a community question. But there is a difference between a bull in china shop and a bull in the field. It might be advisable to wrangle one, but it might be advisable to leave the other one alone.
"Suck it up" is important. It's a big part of what it means to me to be a man. It's also at the heart of a lot of pain in my life and I think of many men. Most men. Maybe all men. What happens when you build your life and yourself around doing your duty and then fail, suck it up, fail, suck it up, and fail again. The flip side of suck it up is the terror of disappointing people.
I think this has a lot to say about how many people, men, support Donald Trump. As a liberal, I find that understandable and moving. Even admirable.
Anyway - good post.
To me, this is clearly at least partly true.
Thank you.
That's exactly right, except you left out "suck it up."
Ah, yes. New Yorker cartoons. It's like Playboy. I buy it for the articles.
Disclaimer: Idiosyncracy warning!
Indeed. Some things just can't get done without cooperation. It cannot only be futile to try and do something on your own; it can actually be counter-productive. That doesn't necessarily mean one should do nothing, but one can try to organize people to cooperate.
I remember the 1976 Olympics and Bruce Jenner's performance. That has always represented the best of what athletics can be to me. I always looked up to him. The sadness I feel watching Kaitlin Jenner now has nothing to do with her transition. It's the comparison of the dedication, discipline, and skill it took to win the medal to the sideshow freak she has turned herself into.
Did it ever?
Was it ever practiced??
Do explain and illustrate with an example.
This makes sense.
I think ignoring the role that biology plays is misleading, but I'm not sure what the causes are makes any difference with how we handle it.
That's pretty damn funny!
I think of the health care industry, where people have devoted their entire lives to saving others, and in pursuit thereof, they have enhanced their own physical fitness, knowledge, and well-being. I could name many names, but that would not be appropriate on a public forum and without their consent. One of these people was headed down what most would consider a dead-end path of self-destruction. They were told to get their head out of their ass and do something for someone else for a change, instead of gazing at their own navel and thinking how F'd up life is.
I've seen it with horses, and other animals, and mothers, particularly.
It is true that one must take care of themselves in order to care for others. But taking care of others can take care of you for that very reason. They found their worth *after* and as part of their service; not before or in spite of it.
The thing is, at least in my experience, that some of my ideas about being a being a man are a reaction my experiences with women who have been my close friends, and also women who have been partners/ lovers.
To have a very strong idea of being a woman, and tying that with your identity, is not the least bit controversial or troubling for, dare I say it, the majority of women. I could give examples but I think everyone will get what I mean. Femininity is something women embrace as giving them a sense of self.
Therefore, in much the same way I have embraced the societal tropes of being a man (consciously without the toxic stuff). In that same way I find it also gives me a nice sense of self. I even like to think, to bring it back the central issue of the virtues of manhood, that my own brand of masculinity can be a force for good.
Problems arise when the trope is taken to be normative - when someone expects others to conform to their own identity.
Being a Man (capitalised) is fine if it is like preferring vanilla icecream over chocolate.
But not if it is like expecting others to prefer vanilla icercream over chocolate.
:100:
Art is no luxury.
I agree it is no luxury. It is a necessity. But I do think it comes with leisure. When folks had a full belly in a warm cave on a cold winter day, they could only screw so much.
Quoting T Clark
cause you Da man
I might have agreed until I spent time with transitioning children. Hence I'm ambivalent towards this:
Quoting unenlightened
Forcing people to "fit in" can be immensely destructive. @T Clark appears to wish that there were normative forces at play in our biology, but that looks to me to be an instance of the naturalistic fallacy.
In the end one needs to be cautious of what one expects of others.
Certainly. Nothing matters if you're starving. Once that and other basic needs are met, we're going to need something meaningful to give some sense to this world of ours. We're just born creative, inquisitive creatures.
Personally, I think art is the only worthwhile contribution of human beings to existence, from any outside, objective perception (assuming there is one). All else we do is BS for ourselves. A better way to say this might be: If after we are long gone, an alien intelligence visits Earth and pokes around, they are going to think art was about it. They won't be impressed with anything else. Hopefully they will be able to hear our music.
I'm sympathetic, the only caveat would be: this would be true if they have the same capacities for art that we have. Maybe they have an art we could not recognize as such and vice versa.
But as you imply, it is rather special. We have all this extra energy after we're done with basic needs. Then we go on putting colors on walls, or rhyming, then on to novels and films and paintings.
Not being precise exactly, speaking more loosely: it's as if whatever we create is the purpose for existence, whatever it is. And often it's some strange thing we call art.
There are masculine virtues?
Yes. They are sealed in a vault somewhere in Texas.
Ah. so presumably there also feminine virtues, and a breeding program. If they are kept seperatly, that would involve artificial insemination. Looks like the makings of an excellent conspiracy theory.
It is a shrewd observation you make. It brings to mind the pop psychology theory that the ideal partner is a reflection of ourselves (*shudder*). Which points to an unwillingness or inability to emphasise. Writ large it underpins sexism.
There's a bit in Terry Pratchett's fantasy novel "Reaper Man" where a lady fortune teller is trying to get past the gates of the (entirely male) Unseen University but a wizard is barring the way. He says "my good woman" a lot in that affable seemingly harmless way which really really angers the fortune teller. I can see now with your description what Pratchett was getting at.
I’ll start be clarifying that I agree masculinity and femininity are not toxic, per se. It’s how we wield these terms to corral, control or justify behaviour (in the name of survival, dominance or proliferation) that can become toxic.
‘Adapt to survive’ as a blanket justification for behaviour is a bit of a cop-out here. It’s a misunderstanding of evolutionary aims. We haven’t evolved as organisms equipped to maximise survival, domination and proliferation, but to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. This capacity and tendency in our behaviour far surpasses any survival necessity.
And if you think that the life and teachings of the Buddha or Christ was about survival, then you weren’t paying attention. The Dalai Lama and the Pope model distorted versions of this, geared towards the (unnecessary) survival of an institution.
Quoting Athena
Societal expectations about gender doesn’t have anything to do with captains of industry, either. The Dalai Lama is a spiritual leader - he’s not running the country, so I don’t know what a comparatively ‘high standard of living’ has to do with what he’s working to achieve. Bill Gates, for all his philanthropy, is doing it out of his surplus resources, not his compassion. To follow the example of Bill Gates is to wait until you’re a billionaire before giving.
To clarify, you are saying the decline of gender roles is linked with the decline of individuality?
Although I love Star Trek, and the example you used, I am afraid I have to disagree with you. Perhaps this is just reflection of my personality and outlook but every classroom, staff meeting or social event I've ever been in feels like a wild West shoot-out of people's ideas. The fastest gun wins. Hell: take this very forum. At the very least I think it shows "group think" is not ubiquitous.
I put it to you that what has changed since the '50s is more people have been empowered, given a voice and have been allowed to enter the fray. I think it's always been a competition, only now we have more players.
Love Discworld! From memory, ‘Equal Rites’ was an interesting commentary on sexism, too.
Doing something meaningful for others often provides purpose and healing for the helper. People dealing with depression, trauma and substance issues, for instance, can find healing in volunteering and community work that they may not get from counselling or introspection. Three decades of work in the area of addictions and mental ill health has demonstrated this to me many times.
What? Not here to survive, multiply and dominate? Isn’t that the goal of evolution?
I agree with you. I think there is a creative impetus underlying evolution - to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. And I think that art has been consolidating our progress in this.
The Romans for example were very virtue orientated with their ethics. The ideal man for the pre-Augustan Romans would one day rise up to command an army and fight away the enemy, and the next day he would return to the plow. I doubt anyone took this literally.
Yes, conformity in that sense can have very negative effects on mental health. To be honest that is not something I considered.
I have strongly held convictions that life is tough and that people should "get tough". I realise that this is a problematic view, as you have just highlighted.
Having observed my wife give birth several decades ago sort of killed my toxic masculinity. We both have demanding jobs. Neither of us speaks for the other without the other's agreement. We are both "male" and "female" at different turns, given the roles associated to them as opposites.
James Brown has agreed to support my point of view:
"Help me somebody."
Is it is all those centuries of ascribing the feminine as the source of evil?
A body gets tired.
Yep.
Teaching resilience is good; so being in challenging situations is important for growth. But not to the point of suicide.
I am a big fan of Stephen J. Gould, who was a strong critic of sociobiology, so I agree with you. Perhaps I was being overeager to push biological influences since so many people want to dismiss them to promote political positions these days.
I don't think of masculinity or femininity as having much to do with moral compasses. Men and women of a stripes can be equally moral and immoral. Having a strong "ethical gyroscope" is probably a combination of a genetic tendency (e.g., to be internally or externally directed) and instruction and training, gregariousness, and so on. I'm more of an introvert, inner-directed, and a loner. Those features go well with masculinity--and so do extroversion, other directedness, and gregariousness.
Sex and gender roles absolutely do have a positive role to play in our sense of self. Being masculine (according to the general definition) is a positive attribute for men, definitely. Masculinity is an essential element in my selfhood. While I dress in masculine clothing (vestis virum reddit, as the Romans said--clothes make the man) my work has been in white collar areas which tend to be dominated by women -- social service, education, etc. I'm glad I had an education which enabled me to perform this work, but at times I envied more technicallly, mechanically oriented workers.
There is another angle to the business of being a man (or woman) --embodiment -- the form of the body into which we are born. I was born with very poor vision. I just didn't see the world the same way most people did (do), and this part of my embodiment precluded a number of activities important to young men: driving, hunting, sports, military, and the like. Sexual orientation is another part of embodiment. Some gay men identify very strongly with feminine roles or personalities. I do/did not. I tended to identify with male roles and personalities.
Another issue complicating the subject is "mother". Females have a very large role in raising boys and both males and females are naturally going to identify with their mothers (as well as their fathers) and are going to take on some of the feminine behavioral and cognitive/emotional features of their mothers. Full-time 100% masculine behavior, cognition and emotion is hard to imagine, and IF it exists it is probably hell to live with for self and others.
There is a lot in embracing femininity that is about a reclaiming of potency. While there is potential for toxicity in this, as much as with masculinity, I think both men and women need a little leeway to find our feet here. Women can put as much social pressure on each other to conform to toxic versions of femininity as men do to toxic masculinity. It’s just less observable/measurable, and much of feminine potency been re-appropriated by men as either sexual permissiveness or man-hating.
I think that your brand of humanity can be a force for good, whether you identify with masculinity or femininity, both or neither. I can relate to your situation of having a physique that enables me to conform with societal tropes, and an awareness of non-conforming in other aspects that gives me freedom to consciously dismiss the toxic stuff. Others are not so lucky.
It is where women and men struggle or fail to conform to societal expectations of gender identity that the real controversy and trouble arises. Non-conformers are ignored or excluded - not just from a particular gender identity, but from any identity. If I don’t have cleavage, I shouldn’t have to compensate for it by showing more skin to be acknowledged - by men or other women. Likewise, if a man doesn’t seem physically strong, he shouldn’t have to compensate for it with aggressive or arrogant behaviour to get noticed.
I think each of us is conforming and non-conforming in diverse ways. In this way we are finding ways to connect or be seen, and also coping with feelings of isolation or exclusion. It is this diversity that is missing from our societal tropes, concealing opportunities for compassion and understanding.
My sight and physical strength are good, but for whatever reason, I have also never been hunting, diving, fishing, have never taken an interest in any sport or the military, owned any weapons or watched cars racing. I have never had any interests in things people sometimes dub male pursuits. I don't listen to or enjoy rock 'n' roll or rarely watch science fiction or action movies. I have friends but no buddies I go out with for 'drinks' and my idea of horror is getting stuck with a group of men as I almost never have any interests in common. I also struggle to see or fully understand this world of male and female separation.
Did your parents require some kind of sign of identity in this regard?
A lot of my understanding of how science, epistemology, and truth work I got from Gould. I learned that bottom up science is what works - put in your efforts getting specifics, then you can generalize. Details, variation within populations, avoiding misleading data and statistics. Respect for solid, competent science even if the results are not consistent with our current understanding. Chocolate bars that weigh nothing and cost $0.85.
I also learned a lot about good writing.
Also - he was on the Simpsons.
:up:
:chin:
Quoting BigThoughtDropper
I don't want to downplay the real and extreme suffering involved whether its trans kids or any other demographic. Neither do I want to come off as an inconsiderate jerk but what if we approach this issue from a military strategist's perspective within a Darwinian context and learn to accept that no victory, in this case an evolutionary one, comes without some losses in "the struggle for survival". Apparently, humans are upsetting the natural order by defying the evolutionary maxim that life is about "survival of the fittest". Let those who can't handle the truth meet their end whatever form that might take. This simple strategy has led us to where we are it (a highly successful species by all accounts), it might be dangerous to abandon what is quite obviously a good gameplan for life in general and humans in particular.
That said, it's odd that evolution should've installed in us a moral compass, a sense of right and wrong, which, you yourself being an example, raises objections to the tactic of letting the weak and helpless die - you feel anguish when trans kids take their own lives.
This isn't something new though, right? People who are proponents of evolution have a tough time explaining how altruism and evolution hang together as a coherent story of life.
I think it might have been better had you stopped there.
"might" for a counterfactual.
In a style guide I once read.
And hell, I did.
Spoken like a rooster :strong:
Touché sir! Touché but the alternative to an honest discussion about such a sensitive issue amounts to burying one's head in the sand. Tough choices, sir, tough choices.
Quoting TheMadFool
Did I not redeem myself?
Why let it determine your moral compass?
Untrue. That's something an apologist would argue. Altruism has significant survival advantages for tribal creatures like human beings.
Noted! However, if it (altruism), as you say, has "...huge survival advantages..." why are there only a handful of altruists around [I'm sure you know about the top 1% who own more than then bottom 90%]? Furthermore, why is altruism so damned difficult to adopt as one's philosophy?
Thanks for alerting me to the evolutionary advantages of altruism and continuing along the same trajectory, there's a good profit margin in terms of maintaining a good ecosystem, one conducive to the well-being of humans if our altruism extends beyond the human family to other living organisms.
Is it the case that altruism needn't be a universal requirement as in not everyone has to be one for the entire human race and the biosphere as well to accrue benefits? Looks like the altruist population need only number in a few hundreds/thousands to keep billions of selfish individuals living peacefully with each other. I might've answered my own question.
Another thing to consider maybe the trend in the number of altruists and their health - mental and physical - over time. Evolution is a dynamic process after all and if altruism is losing popularity, explaining it in terms of "...huge survival advantages..." amounts to a gross error for the simple reason that Darwinian processes may in fact be phasing out this particular feature (altruism) from the gene pool. Never thought of it that way but it does seem completely within the realm of possibility.
Why not? Evolution is the best theory around and at the very least, it should be able to give us a satisfactory answer to questions about human issues. We are living things, right? :chin:
I didn't say society was perfect - hierarchies and power are seperate matters. Nevertheless I would suggest that many of those in the top 1% do have empathy for others and also generously support philanthropic causes. Where would hospitals and charities be without philanthropy? There's a long history of the wealthy sharing resources with the poor. As for the bottom 90%; many can and do work together and pool resources for a common good. It helps them to survive. There's also self-interested altruism and reciprocal altruism - useful survival approaches.
Quoting TheMadFool
Is it a gross error? It's clear empathy and altruism is a strong force on the planet and the marked contrast between this and selfishness is the story of the human race. Will time and changing behaviours remove altruism from humans? Who can say?
Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's not that I'm aiming for some perfect ideal state where everybody is altruistic - you seem to have missed the part in my post where I suggested that a small number of altruists could see the entire human race through thick and thin but then the fact is even this seems too optimistic an assessement of the current situation. Thus my dissatisfaction.
Also, I have doubts as to the aunthenticity of your claims. For instance, lamentably but not surprisingly, hospitals in general are for-profit organizations. I'll leave it at that.
Quoting Tom Storm
I wish I had more to say. You seem to be on the right track though.
Quoting Banno
N/A. The theory of evolution has an overarching principle all life has to conform to - it' a law which basically states that survival is the name of the game. Given this, everything that living organisms do must, one way or another, go towards ensuring survival. Now explain altruism which, in certain respects, is giving the advntage to one's competitor.
Yep, that Alpha Male has to sleep at night. It would behoove him to be smart, too.
An enlightened capitalist would call it enlightened self-interest.
That is an interesting observation.
My knowledge of the change was the day all the teachers in my school were in shock. It was very frightening because we were ducking under our desk to survive a nuclear war. :rofl: Actually I think that was about creating fear and preventing any questioning of the changes brought on by the 1958 National Defense Education Act and establishing the Military-Industrial Complex. Anyway, we were living with fear of a nuclear war and those "Godless" communist. :lol: In an afternoon class, a male teacher announced the purpose of education had been changed. We went from transmitting our culture and the US mythology of our forefathers (national heroes) and preparing everyone for good moral judgment and citizenship, to preparing everyone for a technological society with unknown values. That is, in a teacher conference the teachers learn about the implementation of the National Defense Education Act.
My grandmother was a teacher and we were shocked when she walked away from a job. She was working in a private school and the principal interfered with her classroom discipline. I have collected old books about education for many years, and one of them published in the 1960s explains the impersonalness a teacher is to practice, to be sure s/he treats every student the same. This change in policy and "professional" behavior has penetrated all our institutions. I don't think this is the subject of the thread so I will stop here. But I seriously want people to believe what I am saying. We adopted German bureaucracy and German education and the Military-Industrial Complex is firmly established. Bush called this the New World Order and so did another well-known political leader.
Yes, and without men like Bill Gates (John Wayne), we do not have the industrial wealth that benefits all of us. Being able to educate and feed everyone is a by-product of industrialists taking charge and making things happen. It is not a product of spiritual leaders.
We might admire and envy some indigenous people and their communal living. Their cultures are good for the human soul but do not lead to technology. They would never be able to feed the world as our technology enables us to feed the world. The leaders of their societies are nothing like industrial leaders.
Our notions of what a man is, are very cultural and change. Today if a man wants to be a woman he can use hormones and surgery to physically be more like a woman, and a woman can do the same if she wants to be a man. That thinking would not fly well in our past, nor does it fly well in cultures that have more traditional values.
What a delicious argument. :grin: Truth often is not this or that, but it is this and that. I absolutely love how, in an argument, both people are right although their argument looks completely different. Please watch the two Star Treks with an eye for the differences.
Yes, the underlings have less power than when we use group think, and empower everyone. This does not make it right or better. Strong leadership is better than mushy leadership. There is a time and place for us all to work together, but this should not be at the expense of strong leadership!
My hunch is banding together, social living to be precise, altruism therefore, is the expected response of the weak against stronger competitors. There's strength in numbers and that the dominant species on the planet is homo sapiens proves the point. Forming groups is such a powerful means of survival that evolution over countless generations seems to have selected for individuals that put the group before the self - incipient altruism. This first step laid the foundation for altruism as we know it which I suspect will mature over time into something else, something hopefully much better.
This has nothing to do with "altruism." It has to do with fellow-feeling, community, common values. We're human. We more or less, most of the time like each other. We wish each other well. We share a sense of common purpose with other people.
Also, looking for a specific evolutionary purpose for every detail of every aspect of human behavior is silly and pointless. That's sociobiology and it's wrong-headed.
Quoting TheMadFool
According to the web, In the US, about 20% of hospitals are for-profit.
Agree.
This is what Wittgenstein aptly described as being bewitched by language. Altruism is the concern for the welfare of others and covers, includes, what you call "fellow-feeling", "community", "common values". These are either the basis for or the consequences of altruism.
Quoting T Clark
Is that why doctors in America are so rich? Gimme a break!
You lead, I'll follow.
That's easy. People try to derive lessons from facts, or from what are purported to be facts, for the purpose of their own benefit and advantage.
Touch a hot stove plate, you get burned -- fact. Lesson: don't touch hot stove plates.
What can one learn, for one's own benefit and advantage, from the theory of evolution? That one needs to see to it that one beats natural selection, as much as possible.
Sure, what you say holds for natural hazards. But not for the dangers posed by other humans.
We're not in the wilderness.
We're not, which is my point – the danger from other humans is amplified in negative feedback loops especially in societies which have normalized expectations & behaviors more suitable for wilderness survival. A glance at the differences between crime-ridden gun-macho "frontier-romantic" America and any robust welfare-state in Scandanavia more than illustrates the point: e.g. far lower levels of anti-social pathologies & recividism.
Which doesn't yet mean that healthy people benefit from volunteering etc.
The mentally unwell person needs to do a number of things in order to feel a measure of sanity and wellness; yet those things are not what normal people do in order to maintain their normalcy.
For example, a former smoker who is now practicing abstinence has to do a number of mental, verbal, and physical practices in order to successfully resist the urge to smoke (e.g. repeating affirmations, avoiding people who smoke, visiting a 12-step group). But a normal person who doesn't smoke doesn't need to do any of those practices in order not to smoke.
It's questionable whether one can become normal by doing those things that normal people don't do.
I get that and understand what you say. But none of it suggests that human beings do not have altruism. It simply suggest that some struggle to manifest altruism given economic systems and power.
I think it does and I have seen this many times too. The healthy person often doesn't realise how much more rewarding life can be. For the self-oriented and highly successful business person, for instance, a spate of volunteering is often revelatory and beneficial and changes their entire worldview.
I'm not saying there's no altruism. I'm just contemplating the possibility that it, as a trait, maybe on its way out from the gene pool. To confirm/disconfirm this, we'd need to keep track of altruists - their numbers and their well-being - and look for trends. If the population of altruists are declining then it suggests evolutionary pressure that's working against altruists and if the population graph of altruists is pointing to the top-right of the page, then altruism proves itself as a trait that "...has huge survival advantages..."
I know. No idea about the latter part.
:ok:
The question "ought you do as evolution dictates?" remains open.
So two small issues; the first, evolution does not tell you what you ought to do; the second, as points out, evolution does not tell you what a real man is.
Beautifully said, and it would be wonderful world where we could overcome biology to create an inclusive society which is what I think you are driving at.
I would just make the observation that perhaps your, and my, perspective may be skewed by that fact that, as I consciously mentioned in the OP, all of us here seem to be mostly highly nerdy, highly educated, and highly intelligent. Thus, we are in the minority.
I think the majority of people achieve social cohesion through being in a "gang" of guys or girls doing guyish and girlish things. As you say this can lead to excluding people who do not win the genetic lottery of having a traditionally "masculine" or "feminine" body.
My own experiences have been quite Darwinian and being masculine, although also a pleasant novelty, has also been an excellent survival strategy (I can hear you rolling your eyes, and yes - us men do love to come back to Darwinian theories - perhaps too much).
I will agree with you there. I have never seen a natural consensus of opinion being an effective way of organising human beings; perhaps it is a good way to decide the restaurant my friend group is visiting tonight, or what film we're watching tonight, but not with serious matters where people have serious vested interests.
We all need a Picard in our lives to draw us together, but also a Kirk to drive us forward :wink:
I remember reading somewhere that Wittgenstein, when ask about his diet, said (paraphrased): "I don't mind very much what I eat, as long as it's always the same".
Altruism, in the sense of cooperating with and helping others in your tribe would certainly materially benefit the tribe, and thus be a good survival strategy. But today, in our overpopulated world, protecting and sustaining those who cannot contribute or even help themselves is no longer a good survival strategy. The question is whether we should be concerned predominantly about serving the survival imperative, or about appeasing human ethical principles and feelings.
This is an apologist-style justification for self-serving, ignorant and divisive behaviour. If evolution was based on ensuring survival as a priority, then we would not have evolved to lose all our defense structures. That’s not how Darwin’s theory works. ‘Natural selection’ is not a law that cannot be broken or subverted, or that is flawlessly enforced. It’s not a teleology to which we cannot help but conform. It’s a non-conscious process that eliminates ineffective or unsustainable structures and systems, a trial-and-error process aimed (from a particular origin) in a general direction that has nothing at all to do with maximising survival, dominance or proliferation of a species.
The compromises made to our evolutionary defense structures and the steady increase in capacities such as altruism and diversity over millennia suggests that we’re not evolving for survival. We’re evolving to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. And in fact, one can arguably trace this general direction all the way back past the origin of life, into the chemical and physical origins of the universe.
I recognise that my perception of our general capacity as humans seems to be wishful thinking. I’m certainly not expecting to convince everyone to come around to this perspective all at once. But the universe is not the way it is now from a reliance on probability, so I’m quite comfortable striving for a more effective, efficient, sustainable and adaptable minority.
I’ve already argued briefly against survival, dominance and proliferation as the supposed ‘laws’ of evolution above. Note that a focus on physical capacity and quantitative value (size, etc) can be misleading.
Yes.
Humanist morality is becoming something that fewer and fewer can afford.
Quoting Possibility
Increasing awareness, connection, and collaboration -- to what end? For their own sake?
For the sake of unity - but it’s a case of Achilles and the Tortoise.
Manhood is not necessarily a male thing, but whence an example is set regarding men, it ought be in the light of manhood.
We may as well not have the coward play the general, soldier and sacrifice, because then new recruits will get the wrong idea. It's wise to be cowardly sometimes but who's to distinguish that without a good idea of manhood?
What I'm saying is manhood should be taught as is but recognised as is not to womanhood. Masculinity/feminity, basically I have a Taoist view of community command. There need not be a 'man' guide us but definitely masculinity should be understood.
Unity for the sake of survival is small-time, temporary thinking. You might as well be a rock - at least you’ll exist longer. But unity against overwhelming odds inspires timeless legend. In the collective compassion of a doomed collaboration, survival strategy fades quickly out of focus, and even the so-called ‘enemy’ becomes a partner in the dance. A ‘brotherhood’ that unites in the face of certain death transcends mortality and continues to increase awareness, connection and collaboration long after they’re gone. That’s no coincidence. That recognising this underlying tendency towards unity is so often concealed within the masculine culture of war or sporting competition is endlessly fascinating.
Oh. So one should set one's hopes on becoming a legend?
Using Sigmund Freud's model of Id-Ego-Superego;
The Id is our survival part
The Superego is our moral part
The Ego is the mediator between the two
Can you say that you are solely on this internet forum for moral reasons?
Interesting. Do religious teachings need updating-or do you mean a re-imagining-or perhaps they could be circumvented and a more appropriate substitute found? Why choose early 20th century atheist Freud as the vehicle for a spiritual tradition's transition? A Freudian secular, re-imagining of Buddhism? I know... that's not what you said.
If ‘survival’ is the name of the game, what makes anyone think they can win? And why? We make so many compromises in the survival game, so what is it that does survive, and to what extent can we really call it ‘survival’? And even if the aim was just to ‘beat natural selection’, to what end? To have someone say that we were here? That they notice when we’re gone? To die believing that some part of us still exists? How is that any different from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration?
If you’re using Freud, then I’d say you’re a century behind on your updates. As far as I’m aware, the triune brain is an outdated concept, so I can’t say that I subscribe to Freud’s model.
I wouldn’t say that I’m on this forum for moral reasons, no. Nor would I say that I’m here to ‘survive’, either. I’m here to develop a reliable model of truth in which to interact with the world.
I think most people’s current understanding of the teachings of the Buddha and Christ have been badly distorted and misinterpreted for so long that they’re almost unrecognisable. They’re not about survival, and they’re not about morality, either.
Well, a reliable model of truth sounds fair. Or at least a filter for all the lies. That will do.
I'm mostly familiar with the Christ. His teachings seem to contradict an institution like the church. But being a renegade christian is too hard. If you cannot celebrate the rituals together, what is the point? Then you better disidentify.
I find that triune models help me to make sense of reality. Nihilism, unism (dividing by one), dualism are all good but they need something more. Dividing everything by 3 adds some extra value. At least for me.
In the 1950s we became fascinated with the Victorian-era migrant workers called cowboys, and turned them into heroes of the large and small screens. I know Marion played quite a few of those roles, but it's never seemed to me to be much to aspire to, and I've always been a bit bewildered by the role played by the cowboy in our culture. Bewildered by Marion's role as well, for that matter.
I've wondered why the 1950s are looked upon as a kind of golden era, and think that very few who lived in that time were independent thinkers. It seems to me that people did as much as possible what others were doing, and that any independence in thought, personal appearance and culture was frowned upon. Perhaps that's why many find the ideal of the 1950s so attractive, especially now, when people who get attention are less and less like those we heard of, emulated and saw on TV back then. People who were admired as men and for their manliness were who, then, in realty and not in fantasy? Family men, bread winners, company men, golfers, Charles Atlas, Superman, Gary Cooper in High Noon?
Well, it's the perfect stylised cartoon of mid-century male identity - a rugged individualist who keeps his mouth shut most of the time, can handle himself in a fight and who opened up his nation with just a dream, his bare hands and a Colt.
I think those films were exercises in stylization and were never meant to be taken at face value. The height of that stylization were then the Spaghetti Westerns.
Cowboys were drovers, taking cattle from point A to point B. They traveled in groups. They probably weren't paid well, and their lives were likely dreary and monotonous, unless there was a stampede. With the exception of Rawhide, I don't know if any of the old westerns dealt with actual cowboys.
They instead focused on lawmen, gunfighters, bounty hunters, gamblers and such.
Well said. The Italians, to my eye perfected the Western and at least these 'cowboys' were caked in dirt.
'mercan cowboys were also mostly black or Mexican.
Myth making at work again.
Westerns are an excellent example how a genre simply creates it's own separate reality from the actual history. TV and film in Westerns have always just put historical costumes on contemporary people. You can easily notice the differences in Westerns done in the various decades.
Westerns are an integral part of American culture, or at least were once.
:up:
Hollywood (when it existed) shredded history with almost everything it touched - war stories; gangster films, detective stories. In the mid 20th century, most films were artful propaganda pieces demonstrating that crime doesn't pay and that the decent American man will stand up against the bad guy and win. Is it any wonder the latter half of the 20th century was such a disappointment?
Yes. The vaqueros taught the whites how to do it.
Did that actually stop?
I think Hollywood still exists. I think this era will pass as did the other times too. From the mass of mediocrity (and hypocrisy) there still will come those pearls people will enjoy even later. Even if they are abhorred by the professional critics in Rotten tomatoes etc. today.
Hollywood and the studio system is long gone, as is that worldview. There are other systems and worldviews in operation.
Quoting TaySan
I just think there is plenty of neuroscientific research that debunks Freudian theories. I do prefer a triadic model of reality myself - it’s more stable. But I find that the psyche and how it relates to the brain is more complex than this. Lisa Feldman Barrett, for one, has done important research in the relation between neuroscience and psychology, and found the classic triune model to be severely lacking. But I’m no expert on psycho-analysis, so this is just opinion, really.
Quoting TaySan
I’m with you there on the contradiction. But I don’t think it’s about the rituals, either. In my mind it’s about an example of human interaction with the world, and the lessons that can be learned (and practised) with regard to a model of truth.
If you refer to the Studio system lead by Eastern European Jewish immigrants, that has changed. But still the industry that is based in the US exists, even if the films and series are made physically in other places.
In reality this would be conservatives holding us to our past, and liberals pushing us to change and think of things differently. How fearful are we of change, or of not changing?
I assume you meant to say something like, “Is it because of all the centuries during which men ascribed to women the source of evil?” Well, let me just suggest that, were we to make a survey of all the instances when great male writers spoke about the evils of women, we might just make a case that there is such a thing as toxic femininity.
Quoting Banno
Perhaps it doesn’t...but then there are worse things than death.
No, I did not assign a cause.
All the thinkers who want to ascribe a special quality to "women" don't show much interest beyond their view of being male.
Funny from some points of view.
Not sure about the youngish. Not humanities educated, not nerdy in the traditional sense. Think delinquent.
My understanding of the current political narrative is that men are merely a broken version of woman. Which has no logic to it, but that is not an apparent requisite for a political climate, so no worries there.
I accept that people have very little use for me until they suddenly do. Like many things, value is only assigned based on necessity, and until the shit storm hits, some of us have very little value; our presence makes people nervous. My phone rings when something has gone wrong and needs to be fixed, the pager goes off when something has gone very wrong. Otherwise, my life is relaxed and quiet.
The modern man is an oddity to me; I have no use for him, or the modern woman for that matter. I will judge based on actions, words, and integrity. Gender is not part of that equation, nor is anything else immediately visible.
First I will point out those cowboys were rugged individualists and Picard of Star Trek is not. Conforming to rugged individuality is both conformity and individuality. Individual thinking is a matter of critical thinking skills and the whackos we have today are not critical thinkers! These whackos are running on feelings, not critical thinking.
Here is one explanation of critical thinking.
This is not the thinking process of Qanon nor Evangelist Christians, or cult followers. These folks are running on emotion, not critical thinking. Having a different notion of reality does not make one an independent thinker.
Important to the difference between independent thinking and groupthink is the organization of relationships. The group thinker will be under a policy, the independent thinker is not. This is a difference in authority and responsibility. The difference begins with education. Education for technology prepared the young to rely on experts instead of being independent thinkers. A leader with charisma will have followers such as Hitler and Trump had followers, and at the trails following WWII, the defense was "I was just following orders." Qanon and Evangelist Christians do not have a formal policy, but rather an informal policy and you are not one of them if you don't comply with it. A Trump follower must be 100% loyal to Trump. Either you are one of us or you are not. That is not the hallmark of being independent thinkers.
I wonder what you think a "rugged individualist" to be. If cowboys were, would others who earn a living by being part of a group moving commodities from place to place be rugged individualists as well? I assume that you believe there's something else about cowboys that make them rugged and individualists.
:100:
You should read up on personality psychology (big five) and look at the statistics about male and females.
Those lines and wrinkles in your eyes must make it hard to see, though.
Something to add to this. You actually see what you aim at. And not the rest.
“And here is where the whole business turns nasty. The souls of men—their ambitious, warlike, protective, possessive character—must be dismantled in order to liberate women from their domination. Machismo—the polemical description of maleness or spiritedness, which was the central NATURAL passion in men’s souls in the psychology of the ancients, the passion of attachment and loyalty—was the villain, the source of the difference between the sexes. The feminists were only completing a job begun by Hobbes in his project of taming the harsh elements in the soul. With machismo discredited, the positive task is to make men caring, sensitive, even nurturing, to fit the restructured family. Thus...men must be re-educated according to an abstract project. They must accept the “feminine” elements in their nature...Men tend to undergo this re-education somewhat sullenly but studiously, in order to keep the peace with their wives and girlfriends. And it is indeed possible to soften men. But to make them “care” is another thing, and the project must inevitably fail.”
Very true.
Actually, some training methods have you focus on the front sight blade, not what you aim at.
Also, situational awareness has you seeing the rest.
Ah, another exercise in futility. Must be a philosopher, alright. We can hope one of the last of them.
:lol: You don't want to take on Granny from the TV show Beverly Hillbillies. Being a rugged individual can be the result of living in a harsh environment. Memory fails me, there was a great Persian leader who insisted on living in a region where life was hard because he did not want to become soft like those living where life is easy.
Genghis Khan commanded his people to never settle down and never start accumulating stuff, like the people in cities. He thought cities lead to people being immoral.
:lol: When I was young, I thought it was important to be tough! That meant wearing black leather, smoking, and willing to go to a fight with the intention of fighting. :lol: Today, I have a very different understanding of being tough. I am not sure how tough I am, but it is good I do not depend on anyone to take care of me because there is no one for me to depend on. On the other hand, I am not as tough as some elderly homeless people are. I think I would rather be dead than attempt to live without the comforts of my home.
And some of us are very onery :lol: You can take the high-tech stuff the young are so proud of and throw it in the trash. I want a human being to answer the phone, or to check me in when I see a doctor and I am not dealing with organizations if technology gives me a problem and I can avoid it. I have ideas of how people are to be treated and how they are to behave, and I am not as flexible about such things as when I was young. :lol: That may not belong in a thread about men, but it has something to do with being tough and independent. As we age I think many of us are set in our ways and become less flexible.
Maturity is important and I am a little concerned that culturally the US has gone from the young wanting to prove they are adults, to the young having no respect for their elders and staying immature for a long, long time. Storming the Capitol Building and being a violent demonstrator is not very grown-up. Keeping one's cool and dignity and figuring out how to have political power is much better.
Not after her epic battle with the jackrabbit, which some call a kangaroo.
Now that is a highly intellectual consideration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQJjbJQdymA
There's a giant jackrabbit waiting for us all, I think.
Sure do, I would dare say most women are attracted to masculinity as you described it.
Being a person: not worrying about the answer to this OP.. .?
. The modern world has par excellence a male chauvinistic worldview ... Throughout all the ages the world has been always male oriented ... The whole history of humanity is male oriented ... Have you ever noticed that?! ...
. And evey man is trying to conquer the world ... We live in an imperialistic world, whether consciously or unconsciously ...
. I want you to understand this ...
. The ego is very clever. Once it is there, it is very imperialistic. It wants its empire to be as big as possible. Your house becomes part of your ego, your garden becomes part of your ego, your children become part of your ego, your husband, your wife become part of your ego. You make a very imaginary empire, and this empire is bound to bring you in conflict with nature. But you are at fault, not nature.
. I have heard about a professor of philosophy, head of the department of philosophy in the university of Paris. He was a little eccentric, as philosophers are bound to be.
. His students had become accustomed to his eccentricities, but one day he surpassed himself. He came into the class and said, “I want to make a declaration; if anyone is against it he can stand up. My statement is, that I am the greatest man in the whole world! Has anybody any objection?”
. The students said, “This is too much! We have been tolerating this fellow, anything he says, but now…!”
. One student said, “We are all wanting to know… what is your evidence that you are the greatest man in the world?”
. The professor laughed, he said, “That is very simple. Just answer a few questions. One: which country is the best in the world?”
. The students could not suspect that they were getting caught in the professor’s net. Naturally – they were all French – they said, “Of course, France! There is no question about it.”
. The professor said, “Much is settled. So only France is left. I have to prove myself the greatest man in France, and that will prove me to be the greatest man in the world.”
. The student said, “That is true.”
. Then he said, “In France, which is the biggest city?”
. Now the students became suspicious that he was coming closer, but there was no way of going back. “Paris, of course, is the best city in France.” He said, “Much is settled. Now I want to know which institution in the city of Paris is the greatest, the highest?” Obviously, it was the university.
. And he said, “Now, things are very simple. Which department in the university is the highest and the greatest?” The students looked at each other. They had to accept that it is the department of philosophy. How can any other department be higher than the department of philosophy?
. The old man sat in his chair, and he said, “Now, I am the head of the department of philosophy in the greatest city, Paris, in the greatest country, France. Do you have any objection to my statement that I am the greatest man in the whole world?”
. They had objections, but no logic. The professor had brought them to a point where they had to accept, unwillingly, that he is the greatest man in the world.
. This is the work of the ego that is going on in everybody. Everybody somehow is trying to feel, to convince himself, that he is the greatest man in the world: somebody because he has more muscular strength; somebody because he has more intellectual, argumentative rationality; somebody because she is more beautiful than anybody else.
. And you can always find something that will be supportive to you – but it is not really nourishing to you. It is cutting you off from existence. And then on every step there is going to be trouble; you will find that you are chained.