[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52228908]Great.
And it's disingenuous to claim that I claimed that SJWs are just fiction. :v:
I never claimed they don't exist. I claimed that some people dramatically overblow their real impact on the world.
Remember when Anita Sarkeesian was given a place on a UN council? Remember how people got in a huge huff over it? I certainly do.
Can you name even three things that actually came out as a result of that? I can't. Not to say that there isn't anything that came from it, though. In all honesty, I'm now genuinely curious.[/QUOTE]
I can't speak for everyone's experience, but the universities are very visibly left leaning and post-modernist, at least in the humanities. Concepts like epistemic injustice, political correctness, and the wage gap are heavily touted without much back and forth. It's not quite the echo-chamber some make it out to be, but it can be very biased in many cases. The place where this plays out is in the education of young people, and therefore the future.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52228908]Great.
And it's disingenuous to claim that I claimed that SJWs are just fiction. :v:
I never claimed they don't exist. I claimed that some people dramatically overblow their real impact on the world.
Remember when Anita Sarkeesian was given a place on a UN council? Remember how people got in a huge huff over it? I certainly do.
Can you name even three things that actually came out as a result of that? I can't. Not to say that there isn't anything that came from it, though. In all honesty, I'm now genuinely curious.[/QUOTE]
Do you really want a paranoid twit like her (Someone that thinks third person shooters a conspiracy to hide male butts) to be presenting to the UN unchallenged?
Or Zoe Quinn, someone that tried to argue that "Since I have set up bots to stalk my ex-boyfriend, then if my ex-boyfriend talks about me it should be considered direct harassment to me" along with her?
How about the joke of a report that the UN churned out regarding "Cyber Harassment", which was so laughably bad they had to remove it once people scrutinized it?
How about the part where Feminist Frequency is among the groups being invested $300,000,000 by Intel as a push for "Diversity"?
[QUOTE=Thlis;52228951]Do you really want a paranoid twit like her (Someone that thinks third person shooters a conspiracy to hide male butts) to be presenting to the UN unchallenged?
Or Zoe Quinn, someone that tried to argue that "Since I have set up bots to stalk my ex-boyfriend, then if my ex-boyfriend talks about me it should be considered direct harassment to me" along with her?
How about the joke of a report that the UN churned out regarding "Cyber Harassment", which was so laughably bad they had to remove it once people scrutinized it?
How about the part where Feminist Frequency is among the groups being invested $300,000,000 by Intel as a push for "Diversity"?[/QUOTE]
But what has actually [b]happened[/b] as a result of that? That was my question.
What has [b]happened[/b] as a result of a paranoid twit like her being presented to the UN unchallenged?
What has [b]happened[/b] as a result of Zoe "my boyfriend talking is harrassment" Quinn tagging along with her?
What has [b]happened[/b] as a result of Intel throwing $300,000,000 at Feminist Frequency?
So far, the only thing that you've described that has actually [b]happened[/b] as a consequence of Anita Sarkeesian being given a place on a UN council actually supports my argument that SJWs' impact is overblown - the publication of a "cyber harrassment" report that was so bad that it was removed.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52228961]Still pissing over spilled milk. While people are ranting and raving about every "in the grand scheme of things" not important shit like every slight SJW pull, the alt right is promoting incredibly consequential shit like Brexit, Trump, climate change denial, Marine Le Pen, Ethnonationalism, race realism, the defunding of public institutions like healthcare etc.[/QUOTE]
Well, good thing we aren't forced to identify as solely one or the other, huh?
[editline]14th May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52228969]But what has actually [b]happened[/b] as a result of that? That was my question.
[/QUOTE]
Well, a climate of stifling freedom of speech has arisen and 'shutting down' speakers has become a common if not legitimate tactic in public. Similarly, something of a cult mentality has arisen wherein people are shouted down and insulted if they even dare to dissociate with the 'truth' of neo-liberalist talking points.
[editline]14th May 2017[/editline]
Basically this:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih-CHIiclwk&t=2s[/media]
The whole resurgence of "violent games are bad/are video games turning your kids into satanists/MRAs?".
What more do you need than a fucking scam being included in an investment pool?
People like the aforementioned "Women are a class, don't be a traitor to your kind" are being invited to talks and conferences to numerous businesses. You've got the part where companies like bungie manage to avoid having a video done of them by hiring her for educational lectures.
Do I need to bring up stupid initiatives like[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1505220&highlight="] this [/URL]or[URL="https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-grand-theft-auto-5-this-sickening-game-encourages-players-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women"] this[/URL]?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;52228970]Well, a climate of stifling freedom of speech has arisen and 'shutting down' speakers has become a common if not legitimate tactic in public. Similarly, something of a cult mentality has arisen wherein people are shouted down and insulted if they even dare to dissociate with the 'truth' of neo-liberalist talking points.[/QUOTE]
are you sure that's the result of anita going to the UN council/gamergate shit? because to me, that seems like it was going to happen with or without her.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;52229011]are you sure that's the result of anita going to the UN council/gamergate shit? because to me, that seems like it was going to happen with or without her.[/QUOTE]
Is this really going to come down to a game of
"Well I asked for specific results of one specific event about a specific person"
Gmod4Ever talked as if SJW's don't have an effect. These are points that show that there is an effect.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;52229011]are you sure that's the result of anita going to the UN council/gamergate shit? because to me, that seems like it was going to happen with or without her.[/QUOTE]
Indeed.
I'd argue that they're a symptom of a larger issue, rather than a cause.
Unfortunately, I don't have enough knowledge on the issue to make such a case, nor do I particularly have the interest in doing that research.
It feels to me like we're in the middle of a general sociopolitical upheaval though, spanning the Western world over. These are turbulent times, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that these selectively few people are the [b]cause[/b] of a phenomenon spanning entire continents. I think it more likely that it's this phenomenon that's the cause of these selectively few people popping up and being heard at all.
But, again, I don't have the research to say for certain. That's just my intuition, based off my observations made over the past few years.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;52229011]are you sure that's the result of anita going to the UN council/gamergate shit? because to me, that seems like it was going to happen with or without her.[/QUOTE]
No, it is not the [i]result[/i] of Anita. If anything, it is the other way around. Anita is the result of this philosophical undercurrent to our current society, she simply piggie-backed on the lunacy that neo-liberalism lends itself to. When I replied to that I was replying to the general problem. The more things like those happen in particular, the more the underpinning philosophical standpoint is reinforced and therefore manifested in day to day interactions at both the level of the individual and that of the group.
TRP is toxic and genuinely disturbing. There is such a thing as positive masculinity, and a core part of it is not being afraid to express emotions and be oneself. TRP shuts all that down, bases personal self-worth on how many people you can emotionally manipulate into fucking you, and then wonders why they're unfulfilled as human beings.
/r/MensLib is a much better resource for addressing inequalities that men face in a constructive way. It encourages people to be themselves and not bind themselves to arbitrary gender roles. If you want to be effeminate as a man, go for it. If you want to be a masculine alpha male who sleeps around, go for it - just respect others while you do so.
Positive masculinity needs to take off. A lot of feminist lingo pushes men away from the entire gender equality discussion. People hear "toxic masculinity" and think it's feminists wanting to control men's natural state, not realizing that it's about freeing men from strict gender roles and allowing them to express themselves openly without concern for how they "should" behave. There's some really strict gender roles, and a lot of men are taught by society that their value is about how many girls they get or how much money they have or the car they drive - all very materialistic shit. Men need a movement to address the gender roles that we're cooped up in. TRP and MRA and MGTOW are not that movement - they reinforce those gender roles. Guys who just want to find a girl or a guy and cuddle and read books together and do lovey-dovey shit are "betas," and women are just using them on the cock carousel. It's restrictive unless you're already a guy who likes to lift weights and have lots of casual sex. Real freedom from gender roles is encouraging individuality, and TRP does the opposite and defines men as one of two types - alpha or beta. Don't fit in with those roles? You're a beta male, worthless. It's negative and restrictive and damages men who don't fit in the specific roles.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;52229059]TRP is toxic and genuinely disturbing. There is such a thing as positive masculinity, and a core part of it is not being afraid to express emotions and be oneself. TRP shuts all that down, bases personal self-worth on how many people you can emotionally manipulate into fucking you, and then wonders why they're unfulfilled as human beings.
/r/MensLib is a much better resource for addressing inequalities that men face in a constructive way. It encourages people to be themselves and not bind themselves to arbitrary gender roles. If you want to be effeminate as a man, go for it. If you want to be a masculine alpha male who sleeps around, go for it - just respect others while you do so.
Positive masculinity needs to take off. A lot of feminist lingo pushes men away from the entire gender equality discussion. People hear "toxic masculinity" and think it's feminists wanting to control men's natural state, not realizing that it's about freeing men from strict gender roles and[B] allowing them to express themselves openly without concern for how they "should" behave[/B]. There's some really strict gender roles, and a lot of men are taught by society that their value is about how many girls they get or [B]how much money they have or the car they drive[/B] - all very materialistic shit. Men need a movement to address the gender roles that we're cooped up in. TRP and MRA and MGTOW are not that movement - they reinforce those gender roles. Guys who just want to find a girl or a guy and cuddle and read books together and do lovey-dovey shit are "betas," and women are just using them on the cock carousel. It's restrictive unless you're already a guy who likes to lift weights and have lots of casual sex. Real freedom from gender roles is encouraging individuality, and TRP does the opposite and defines men as one of two types - alpha or beta. Don't fit in with those roles? You're a beta male, worthless. It's negative and restrictive and damages men who don't fit in the specific roles.[/QUOTE]
I find this hilarious considering how often I've seen feminist insults along the lines of calling men virgins, calling them basement dwellers, and the obvious male tears mug aficionados that simultaneously complain that men are told not to / are berated for crying.
This trailer got me to watch the full documentary, it was enjoyable to watch and some of the statistics were sobering and depressing. Her ending argument is that it is important to allow discussion and critique of gender roles and issues, but most voices are being silenced unless they support women.
Its a great introduction to some of the issues unique to men and the struggle to communicate them to the public. I would recommend it to anyone who's curious.
[QUOTE=Thlis;52229024]Is this really going to come down to a game of
"Well I asked for specific results of one specific event about a specific person"
Gmod4Ever talked as if SJW's don't have an effect. These are points that show that there is an effect.[/QUOTE]
it just seemed to me that was what he was implying, but i guess you're sort of right about SJWs having an effect, but i feel there's better people to use as examples of the effects of their actions. zoe and anita are mostly just annoying and petty insignificant in the grand scheme of things, the ones that advocate and partake in violence are the ones that i feel are the real issue and should be focused on.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;52229059]:alien:[/QUOTE]
are you talking about the movie or the subreddit/movement? don't let the name fool you; the documentary actually agrees with a lot of what you're saying.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;52229059]TRP is toxic and genuinely disturbing. There is such a thing as positive masculinity, and a core part of it is not being afraid to express emotions and be oneself. TRP shuts all that down, bases personal self-worth on how many people you can emotionally manipulate into fucking you, and then wonders why they're unfulfilled as human beings.
/r/MensLib is a much better resource for addressing inequalities that men face in a constructive way. It encourages people to be themselves and not bind themselves to arbitrary gender roles. If you want to be effeminate as a man, go for it. If you want to be a masculine alpha male who sleeps around, go for it - just respect others while you do so.
Positive masculinity needs to take off. A lot of feminist lingo pushes men away from the entire gender equality discussion. People hear "toxic masculinity" and think it's feminists wanting to control men's natural state, not realizing that it's about freeing men from strict gender roles and allowing them to express themselves openly without concern for how they "should" behave. There's some really strict gender roles, and a lot of men are taught by society that their value is about how many girls they get or how much money they have or the car they drive - all very materialistic shit. Men need a movement to address the gender roles that we're cooped up in. TRP and MRA and MGTOW are not that movement - they reinforce those gender roles. Guys who just want to find a girl or a guy and cuddle and read books together and do lovey-dovey shit are "betas," and women are just using them on the cock carousel. It's restrictive unless you're already a guy who likes to lift weights and have lots of casual sex. Real freedom from gender roles is encouraging individuality, and TRP does the opposite and defines men as one of two types - alpha or beta. Don't fit in with those roles? You're a beta male, worthless. It's negative and restrictive and damages men who don't fit in the specific roles.[/QUOTE]
Damn, I looked through that menslib sub and it's quite refreshing to see. A lot of discussions about male identity and issues without all that toxic red pill bullshit and bitching about women.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;52228495]She's a lot more level-headed some of the others *cough*Sargon of Akkad*cough*, but she's still one of the ones perpetuating the idiotic idea [I][B]that feminists are more of a fucking problem then all the other shit our society is dealing with[/B][/I], so she's still not great if you ask me.
Also she isn't alt-right, at best she's part of the psuedo-right, what I call people like Sargon, Armored Skeptic and Thunderf00t, people who don't necessarily subscribe to right wing ideals but are simply heavily against left wing ideologies.[/QUOTE]
[video]https://youtu.be/4WqryoEJqZg[/video]
Oh they're up there.
This is the canadian senate, and each and every one of them sounds like the worst blue haired goon you've ever heard. And just in case you're not aware, the bill they're discussing, c-16, enacts compelled speech to do with preferred pronouns, deferring to the Kafkaesque provincial human rights council as the authority on the matter. Which basically functions as an extrajudicial court system, who's defining powers include not being constrained by precedent, burden of proof or a jury. And who's powers of punishment include fines, jailtime, garnishing of wages, and "whatever the council deems appropriate", according to it's own defining documents. And then that limp wristed mook at 45:00 flat out says opposing this bill is proporting genocide against trans-sexual people. This shit is not ok.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;52229059]
Guys who just want to find a girl or a guy and cuddle and read books together and do lovey-dovey shit are "betas," and women are just using them on the cock carousel. It's restrictive unless you're already a guy who likes to lift weights and have lots of casual sex. Real freedom from gender roles is encouraging individuality, and TRP does the opposite and defines men as one of two types - alpha or beta. Don't fit in with those roles? You're a beta male, worthless. It's negative and restrictive and damages men who don't fit in the specific roles.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but all you have to do is look to any story to find the [I]real[/I] positive role model for men. The hero myth.
St. George and the dragon, Mesopotamian creation myth, any good religious figure like the Buddha or Christ. It all boils down to one archtype, and that's that the ideal man/hero/individual, (it's not confined to men, but it's certainly masculine in nature) is the one who can identify a problem, venture into the unknown, confront the issue, typically by outsmarting it or through brute force, overcoming it, and claiming the hidden value resting underneath it. That's why the classic image of a dragon is a giant apex predator lurking underground, sitting on a pile of gold. You have to confront the terror and unknown, overcome it, and claim it's reward. And this typically happens at a great personal expense. Particularly with figures like christ. The ideal isn't "Kill the thing for your own gain", it's "kill the thing for the gain of everyone around you, no matter the cost to yourself"
You hear feminists talk about toxic masculinity, and how masculinity is sheerly a tyranical force that needs to be trained out of existence like some kind of original sin endemic to all that is masculine. But if you look at the male role models, it's absolute bullshit. Nobody admires the tyrant or the brute. They admire the selfless and brilliant civilized monster. Someone who's capable of great aggression/conflict but is still a selfless and well mannered person. The feminists are only telling half the story. It's like the old story of the two kings, lion king being the perfect example. For every conniving tyrant there's a benevolent and wise king, and that's the two sides of masculinity, really. That's why that story is so old, from god and satan to thor and loki to a great number of cultures ascribing those personalities to the sun and the moon, and their eternal "fight" over every day. It's still around because it's an accurate representation of the two natures of men.
So in today's world, you can be effemenate and still be a good man by fufilling your "duty", in a sense. They aren't [I]specifically[/I] antithetical, however obviously due to the overlap of associated personality types, there may be the correlation, because a really limp wristed toff who's never known a day of conflict in his life probably isn't going to suddenly take on a massive burden of responsibility and go confront the proverbial Smaug
[QUOTE=Thlis;52229076]I find this hilarious considering how often I've seen feminist insults along the lines of calling men virgins, calling them basement dwellers, and the obvious male tears mug aficionados that simultaneously complain that men are told not to / are berated for crying.[/QUOTE]
I agree, and I think that's largely a result of feminism being mainstream and having hundreds and thousands of competing definitions and ideas. It's not hilarious, it's not "feminism" being bad, it's a result of fad followers who don't even understand the basic ideas behind the pursuit for gender equality and the restrictions of gender roles. There are plenty of self-identifying feminists who uphold gender roles, and that's a problem - but unlike TRP/MRA/MGTOW, the core purpose of feminism is not to [I]uphold[/I] gender roles. It's sort of the opposite - but then some feminists would disagree, and it's all very contentious and hard to define. You can't pin down "what feminists believe" much more than you can pin down "what Americans believe," since there's so much goddamn variety of thought within the label.
There are a lot of people starting to address the unbelievably strict gender roles that men face. I can't count the number of times I've seen videos from Mic and AJ+ or even Buzzfeed talking about trying to get rid of the stigma against men showing emotion.
There's pop feminism and then there's people who genuinely want to pursue gender equality. My own sister, who considers herself a feminist, was complaining to me about her ex one day. And then she said she hated men. And I was like, "what the fuck no you don't, you don't hate me." And she told me that I wasn't "really" a man, which was unbelievably offensive. We had a long talk about that and how demeaning it is both to say you "hate all men" and to say someone isn't "really" a man. Rule of thumb - does someone identify as a man? They're a man. It doesn't matter if they like to chop lumber and smoke cigars in the mountains while wrestling bears or if they like to wear makeup and go to drag balls. It doesn't matter if they like both. They're men, regardless of what role they've taken on, whether they're masculine or feminine, it doesn't matter.
There's a strict gender role where if you aren't a masculine man fucking bitches on the reg, you're not a "real man," and it's horrible for people who aren't that kind of person naturally. If you are, good on you, but if you feel pressured to behave that way because of what other people expect of you, you're being forced into a role that you don't necessarily want to be in, and that needs to be fixed.
[editline]14th May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;52229099]Damn, I looked through that menslib sub and it's quite refreshing to see. A lot of discussions about male identity and issues without all that toxic red pill bullshit and bitching about women.[/QUOTE]
It's a fantastic subreddit and when I found it I binged through the top posts until I'd read almost everything on there. It's positive and uplifting, it addresses problems with male identity from a male perspective, and it really does encourage people to live life however they please instead of confining themselves to gender roles that they're uncomfortable in.
The best part is that they emphasize the things that make you a good [I]person[/I], not a good man or a good woman. It's not about being an alpha male, it's about treating people with respect and dignity and taking on literally whatever role you want. The sexism of what composes a "good man" is decades behind what women have achieved. If you want to be a good woman, you no longer have to have children, you no longer have to take care of the home, you no longer need to have your primary responsibility be the care of a man. Men still face way more pressure to conform, and that sub makes me incredibly happy because it realizes that men are affected by body image issues as much as women, and that men face pressure to conform as much as or more than women. It equalizes the struggle for gender equality and erases the idiotic antagonism of the "gender war."
[QUOTE=Luni;52228262]As an aside: isn't sh0eonhead just another alt-right talking head at this point?
I watched TWO VIDEOS back during GG and I got alt-right/TRIGGERED SJW shit in my recommendations for [i]weeks.[/i][/QUOTE]
She's ~[I]libertarian[/I]~
So basically she uses the classic "whiney liberals" broad generalization schtick that a lot of right-wingers do, but she isn't really right-wing.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52229292][video]https://youtu.be/4WqryoEJqZg[/video]
Yeah but all you have to do is look to any story to find the [I]real[/I] positive role model for men. The hero myth.
St. George and the dragon, Mesopatamian creation myth, any good religious figure like the Buddha or Christ. It all boils down to one archtype, and that's that the ideal man/hero/individual, (it's not confined to men, but it's certainly masculine in nature) is the one who can identify a problem, venture into the unknown, confront the issue, typically by outsmarting it or through brute force, overcoming it, and claiming the hidden value resting underneath it. That's why the classic image of a dragon is a giant apex predator lurking underground, sitting on a pile of gold. You have to confront the terror and unknown, overcome it, and claim it's reward. And this typically happens at a great personal expense. Particularly with figures like christ. The ideal isn't "Kill the thing for your own gain", it's "kill the thing for the gain of everyone around you, no matter the cost'
You hear feminists talk about toxic masculinity, and how masculinity is sheerly a tyranical force that needs to be trained out of existence like some kind of original sin endemic to all that is masculine. But if you look at the male role models, it's absolute bullshit. Nobody admires the tyrant or the brute. They admire the selfless and brilliant civilized monster. Someone who's capable of great aggression/conflict but is still a selfless and well mannered person. The feminists are only telling half the story. It's like the old story of the two kings, lion king being the perfect example. For every conniving tyrant there's a benevolent and wise king, and that's the two sides of masculinity, really. That's why that story is so old, from god and satan to thor and loki to Macbeth. It's still around because it's an accurate representation of the two natures of men.[/QUOTE]
See, this is one problem I have with feminist lingo. You're taking "toxic masculinity" to mean that masculinity [I]itself[/I] is toxic. That's not at all what it's supposed to mean, even if some people have misinterpreted it to mean that. Toxic masculinity is the tyrant or the brute. It's the rapist. It's the angry drunkard. It's the [I]uncontrolled[/I] predatory impulses within masculinity. It's not that masculinity [I]itself[/I] is bad, which is why I'm citing /r/MensLib and talking about positive masculinity. When people talk about "rape culture" and "toxic masculinity," other people are quick to switch to the defensive. They're not a rapist, they've never wanted to rape anyone, how is there a rape culture? Masculinity is toxic? So all men are bad and toxic, right? Not at all. There's a language issue with what terminology stuck to refer to certain concepts.
Feminists are not opposed to masculinity. Toxic masculinity is not masculinity, it is masculinity amped up to an extreme level that starts to bring harm both to others and oneself. Toxic masculinity is 50's American society, where men are so pressured to fit a specific masculine role that failure to achieve this ideal masculine archetype drives men to drink, and to abuse (not only women, but themselves, through recklessness and self-harm and excessive risk-taking).
The pushback against "toxic masculinity" is not to "train masculinity out of existence." Masculinity is not just the rapist and the abuser and the reckless drunkard - it's fatherhood, it's being a loving husband, it's having the courage to stand up to injustice, it's far, far more than the predatory base instinct. Feminists (well, some, hopefully most) are aware of that. The problem is that people perceive a fight against gender roles as the "feminization" of men, because suddenly men are able to express behavioral traits that aren't necessarily rambo-level masculine where they need to drive fast cars and have reckless sex and treat women as objects and fetishize war and murder.
Even in your description, where you recognize that there is more to masculinity, you're sticking it to a very specific western ideal. The leader. Well, not everyone can be a king or a leader. Not everyone is courageous enough. Does that make the shy, nerdy kid who's too socially anxious to speak his mind "not a real man?" No. You're talking story tropes - masculinity is way more complex and nuanced. A quiet, loving stay-at-home dad isn't a wise king - he doesn't even provide for his family. He can easily still be a masculine character. Breaking down these incredibly rigid expectations is how you get past the "toxic masculinity" and recognize forms of masculinity that are less predatory and obsessed with power.
Well when it comes to feminists, of course you have to give them the benifit of the doubt and assume benign intentions, but with the public figures, more often than not that's not the case. There's a bit from the film near the end when she's talking to Big Red, and when confronted with those issues the film raised she just said "Cry me a fuckin' river." So while let's say most feminsts make the distinction between positive and negitive aspects of masculinity, they [I]still[/I] only tell half the story. I cannot ever recall seeing a prominent femminist figure or institution praising the traditional virtues of masculinity And besides that, there's still a sizable chunk who don't care to make the distinction at all.
But that's not the point.
[QUOTE]
Even in your description, where you recognize that there is more to masculinity, you're sticking it to a very specific western ideal. The leader. Well, not everyone can be a king or a leader. Not everyone is courageous enough. Does that make the shy, nerdy kid who's too socially anxious to speak his mind "not a real man?" No. You're talking story tropes - masculinity is way more complex and nuanced. A quiet, loving stay-at-home dad isn't a wise king - he doesn't even provide for his family. He can easily still be a masculine character. Breaking down these incredibly rigid expectations is how you get past the "toxic masculinity" and recognize forms of masculinity that are less predatory and obsessed with power. [/QUOTE]
You fail to understand the real implication of the archtype. It doesn't specifically represent leaders, because it's the same pattern of behaviour men should assume at all scales. What it means at it's core is assuming responsibility for other things that are dependent on your strength, and go confront things you don't want to confront. It means working at a steel mill to provide for your family. It means voicing your political opinion to confront something no-one else will. It means assuming the perpetual responsibility of maintaining things that are an unpleasurable burden to maintain, like a house or some other complicated thing. And when in a position of power, it means assuming responsibility for those underneath you and serving them before yourself, and dealing with things that those beneath you cannot deal with themselves.
It's a universal archtype, and not just specifically constrianed to people in positions of power.
And no, a stay at home dad doesn't fit the wise king, because he's assuming the role of the caring maternal figure. There is a multiplicity of archtypes and values to serve. And in no way does either of those roles having a traditionally associated gender constrain either genders to strictly adhere to them. Nor are there really any negative consequences to those traditionally associated images of those roles. And the quiet and physically impotent nerd can still fulfill the hero myth by being strong in other areas. Bill Gates being the perfect example. By following his proclivities and interests, and assuming the burden of a risky buisness, he fundimentally revolutionized the world by seeing the hidden value in the computer, working his hands off to make it appealing to the market, and was fantastically rewarded for his efforts. The hero myth doesn't mean strong man, it means responsible, capable, selfless and tenacious.
Just look at Theresa May. Now what you think of her politics is irrelevant, but in taking the mantle of the PM to confront an issue she sees in the EU, she's taking on the masculine role by assuming responsibility, accepting that burden and confronting a great issue. Just because these are traditionally gendered images surrounding them, doesn't mean these archetypes are all consuming and constraining.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52229292]
Yeah but all you have to do is look to any story to find the [I]real[/I] positive role model for men. The hero myth.
St. George and the dragon, Mesopotamian creation myth, any good religious figure like the Buddha or Christ. It all boils down to one archtype, and that's that the ideal man/hero/individual, (it's not confined to men, but it's certainly masculine in nature) is the one who can identify a problem, venture into the unknown, confront the issue, typically by outsmarting it or through brute force, overcoming it, and claiming the hidden value resting underneath it. That's why the classic image of a dragon is a giant apex predator lurking underground, sitting on a pile of gold. You have to confront the terror and unknown, overcome it, and claim it's reward. And this typically happens at a great personal expense. Particularly with figures like christ. The ideal isn't "Kill the thing for your own gain", it's "kill the thing for the gain of everyone around you, no matter the cost to yourself"
You hear feminists talk about toxic masculinity, and how masculinity is sheerly a tyranical force that needs to be trained out of existence like some kind of original sin endemic to all that is masculine. But if you look at the male role models, it's absolute bullshit. Nobody admires the tyrant or the brute. They admire the selfless and brilliant civilized monster. Someone who's capable of great aggression/conflict but is still a selfless and well mannered person. The feminists are only telling half the story. It's like the old story of the two kings, lion king being the perfect example. For every conniving tyrant there's a benevolent and wise king, and that's the two sides of masculinity, really. That's why that story is so old, from god and satan to thor and loki to a great number of cultures ascribing those personalities to the sun and the moon, and their eternal "fight" over every day. It's still around because it's an accurate representation of the two natures of men.
So in today's world, you can be effemenate and still be a good man by fufilling your "duty", in a sense. They aren't [I]specifically[/I] antithetical, however obviously due to the overlap of associated personality types, there may be the correlation, because a really limp wristed toff who's never known a day of conflict in his life probably isn't going to suddenly take on a massive burden of responsibility and go confront the proverbial Smaug[/QUOTE]
This bizarre, tortured comparison is like the human centipede of metaphors.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;52229570]This bizarre, tortured comparison is like the human centipede of metaphors.[/QUOTE]
What a compelling counter argument
Do you think these images and ideas appear universally across all cultures over all of recorded human history by chance?
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52229700]What a compelling counter argument
Do you think these images and ideas appear universally across all cultures over all of recorded human history by chance?[/QUOTE]
No, they appear universally across all cultures over all of recorded human history by being so simple and generic as to have barley any value as a literary device, much less some non-sequitur allegory of gender roles.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;52229737]No, they appear universally across all cultures over all of recorded human history by being so simple and generic as to have barley any value as a literary device, much less some non-sequitur allegory of gender roles.[/QUOTE]
So given that that's true, the only conclusion to draw is that all cultures in all time periods independently came up with the exact same structure, metaphorical imagery and behaviour tropes, despite the fact that none of it actually represents anything or any refined pattern of behavior or bears any real meaning beyond vapid entertainment. Which is also assuming that this universal archtype is entertaining, despite being devoid of meaningful utility in a narritive, in the face of all other possible stories, and yet is still both omnipresent and the dominant archetype in all cultures.
[QUOTE=Luni;52228262]just another alt-right talking head[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;52228495]psuedo-right[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mingebox;52228673]new label called the I'm Not Touching You Right[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Duck M.;52228762]"reactionary idiot".[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52228845] "straw knights" [/QUOTE]
Lovely titles.
It always amazes me how people just make up a bullshit term to lump people who they disagree with into that category just so they can dismiss them entirely without ever addressing their argument.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52229758]Lovely titles.
It always amazes me how people just make up a bullshit term to lump people who they disagree with into that category just so they can dismiss them entirely without ever addressing their argument.[/QUOTE]
and it all bears the tacit assumption that anything not "left" is inherently valueless. So that's good.
The left isn't even liberal anymore for fucks sake. And the reflexive morale ground you're standing on when claiming virtue in the left is/was the association with standing for individualist and liberal principals in the face of fundie christians and far right authoritarians. Brilliant stuff.
Just watched the documentary. Never realized that such smart people are at the head of the men's rights movement. And I've been researching this subject for years.
The internet really managed to fuck everything up, didn't it?
The feminist movement worked because it started when the Internet didn't exist to throw a bunch of noise at it. People could actually organize and discuss things in a healthy and constructive way. Nowadays, that isn't the case. The effective leadership has been downed out by the retard laymen over at /r/TheRedPill.
The feminist vs MRA debate, like most debates in the modern era, consist of both sides parroting at each other. The difference between the feminists and the MRAs, is the feminist side has a whole catalogue of actual-people-who-knew-what-the-fuck-they-were-talking-about back in the 1970s. The MRAs have fuck all. And that's why they're losing.
[QUOTE=Perrine;52227830]
People protested over this documentary at Sydney University after reading the title:
[url]http://honisoit.com/2017/05/protesters-clash-one-arrested-outside-the-red-pill-screening/[/url][/QUOTE]
lol student societies
Watching this documentary made me realise how easy you can handwave an entire movement by strawmanning the lowest common denominator and we see it all the time: crazy third wave feminists, misogynist MRAs, Nazi republicans, snowflake sjw liberals. And by doing this nobody actually listens to the valid viewpoints of either side because it's all a fucking battle nowadays and if you have a debate it's playing to win rather than actually take in some ideas and think critically.
People keep saying "neo-liberalism" in this thread which makes no sense. NEO-LIBERALISM IS AN ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY, it's pro-austerity, pro-deregulation, pro-free trade, and pro free market capitalism. Think Reagan, Clinton, Bush.
You can't just add NEO to the start of liberal and it mean the baddies that you don't like.
On topic: Extreme SJWs on the left are a problem, mostly among the younger generations, but it's a loud minority. In contrast to the extreme right who control all the branches of our government and a majority of our state governments and actively pose a risk to all.
I think the movie should've gone with another name, but nevertheless I've heard good things about it.
[QUOTE=shadow_oap;52232085]People keep saying "neo-liberalism" in this thread which makes no sense. NEO-LIBERALISM IS AN ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY, it's pro-austerity, pro-deregulation, pro-free trade, and pro free market capitalism. Think Reagan, Clinton, Bush.
You can't just add NEO to the start of liberal and it mean the baddies that you don't like.
On topic: Extreme SJWs on the left are a problem, mostly among the younger generations, but it's a loud minority. In contrast to the extreme right who control all the branches of our government and a majority of our state governments and actively pose a risk to all.
I think the movie should've gone with another name, but nevertheless I've heard good things about it.[/QUOTE]
I very agree what you said for Neoliberalism as economical theory/ideology and other reason to hate them as a real thing (not an extremely far-leftist conspiracy version of that).
But problem if a person who self-subscribed Neoliberal (like a modern day closeted centrist to centre right) and tries claim care of social issues are going used Identity politics through like media support as lazy attempted of said social issues.
And because of that, Well there reason why leftists (like me) hate on Neoliberalism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
