[quote]Neo-Masculinists believe that men should go back to being men, and re-adopt more traditionally masculine behavior. They believe that the cause of modern mens' unhappiness, and high suicide rate, is that they have been denied the experience of truly acting like a man apparently should. Manly men, they argue, are supposedly more likely to attract women, have better and longer lasting relationships and contribute more to their community than those damn effeminate wimp-biscuits that men are today. Men that follow this model of masculine behavior of high independence, risk-takingness, dominance, stoicism and casual dress are said to be Alpha males, or Alphas, while the other subservient men who do what they're told and don't beat their fists on their chests like Tarzan are said to be Beta males, or Betas. Masculinists argue that Betas are more likely to suffer abuse by both women and other men, including being cheated on or 'cuckolded', because they don't demand enough respect. Essentially, they say act tough or people will take advantage of you. Critics of Neo-Masculinism disagree with the idea that, historically, men were ever as unabashedly domineering of women as Neo-Masculinists claim (or they might've been, but they didn't tend to live very long without being clubbed in the head) and that most of the world (barring some third-world countries, parts of the middle-east and the southern states of the USA) evolved past the whole confrontational nature of 'talk softly and carry a big stick' for a reason and that homicide rates in places where that mentality is common begs to differ the whole 'men live longer lives' thing.[/quote]
Actually fuck anyone who thinks this way, betas and alphas are the most retarded shit and basically anyone who doesn't want to be some hypermasculine meathead asshole is a "beta" aka worse which is such a disgusting viewpoint, they probably think gay people are degenerates too because "they're too beta to get a girl"
shouldn't even be in the OP, this is what people who can't find a girlfriend and think that "jocks only get girls because they're assholes so I should act like an asshole too!", not actual academics
thread is dumb anyway
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48556716]Actually fuck anyone who thinks this way, betas and alphas are the most retarded shit and basically anyone who doesn't want to be some hypermasculine meathead asshole is a "beta" aka worse which is such a disgusting viewpoint, they probably think gay people are degenerates too because "they're too beta to get a girl"
shouldn't even be in the OP, this is what people who can't find a girlfriend and think that "jocks only get girls because they're assholes so I should act like an asshole too!", not actual academics
thread is dumb anyway[/QUOTE]
As I've stated multiple times throughout this thread, I haven't endorsed any of the viewpoints expressed in the OP. I'm just presenting them as is, in terms of what the followers of each particular ideology believe. The idea is not to express what 'actual academics' think, but rather what the internet thinks, and presenting those views in as much of a fair and neutral way as possible (Which people in this thread have helped me with, thanks for that!).
Do you find fault with that approach? Or is it simply dumb to present and discuss alternative viewpoints and attempt to understand why people think the way they do?
In order to begin discussing an issue we must first reach across the table and understand what the other side thinks and why they think it. I believe doing this does not make someone a traitor to their cause or an idiot, I think it's a necessity if there is ever going to be some sort of frank discussion and conflict resolution as opposed to ad hominem and unhelpful insults that do little to educate people.
I agree with the rest of your post.
[QUOTE]shouldn't even be in the OP, this is what people who can't find a girlfriend and think that "jocks only get girls because they're assholes so I should act like an asshole too!", not actual academics[/QUOTE]
Rousseau, an academic savant, was the first to come up with the concept of the Noble Savage, an idealized perspective of indigenous tribal communities that lead him to the notion that humanity would be benefited by a return to baser human traits and to nature. This concept lead to an entire era of history called the Enlightenment as well as leading up to the artistic movement called Romanticism and eventually to Art Nouveau, a period of art which began in response to increased dependence on Industrialization in society as opposed to nature and hand-crafted goods. Heck, even the hippy movement in the 60s was inspired by this notion of returning to nature. In retrospect, we can see that many of these notions at the time were poorly thought out and later disproven, such as Rousseau's ideas of natural humanity as an ideal form being disproven by historical data and updated understanding of human biology. We still discuss these ideas though, and this Masculinism thing seems to be another aspect of that. It's an idealization of 'maleness' in the same sense of Rousseau's idealization of indigenous tribal communities and has similar (perhaps unintended in one case but maybe not the other) consequences.
Both are equally flawed.
Perhaps we should attempt to discover why people are, time and time again, drawn to this idea of idealization? If we can discover this, I think we will be able to sufficiently disprove the concept to anyone, including Meninists.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48558780]As I've stated multiple times throughout this thread, I haven't endorsed any of the viewpoints expressed in the OP. [/QUOTE]
Was never implying you did, I was just expressing my dislike for the viewpoint
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48559045]Was never implying you did, I was just expressing my dislike for the viewpoint[/QUOTE]
I thought that was what you were implying when you said the thread was dumb. In any case, It would be interesting to hear your thoughts as to why that is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
