Philosophy Now Forum

as I am going across a couple of different areas, the political,
the social, gender, I am going to place this here as a compromise...

I have heard of attacks from conservatives about how society is becoming
corrupt because of the "feminization of men"... part of what is "wrong" with
society today, is the so called "femininization of men"...

but what does this actually mean? I have no idea... part of the current
attack of conservatives is the "grooming" of children... Now, to be clear,
the state itself grooms children.. we take citizenship classes and that is
attempting to "groom" children to be better citizens.. the state/society
grooms children all the time by its laws, media, educational process,
and advertising... and ads doesn't just sell something, it is a primer on
the role of men and women within the society/state...ads are another
example of the society/state grooming children...

Now this attack of the "feminization of men" is based on some fixed idea
of what men are and what men aren't... and then, it is never stated, but
assumed that this idea/fixing of roles, somehow impacts the society/state
negatively... but all of this is nothing more than assumptions.. what the
role of men within society has never been adequately worked out...
what is the benefit to men, acting in roles given to them by society,
how does that impact the men and their choices, and
their impact within the society/state?

As far as I can tell, it is all simple assumptions that dictate how
one feels about this allege "feminization of men" and its impact
on the state/society..

and the state takes actions based on these assumption..
by passing laws preventing gays and trans people from living their lives...
how does this "grooming" of people benefit either the people impacted or
the state/society?

For the largest grooming of people in the world today, it used to
be religion, but today, it is the state that grooms people by its
laws, rules, and education.... especially in its education.... education
is grooming.. making children into obedient little citizens..
turning them into good workers, producers and consumers...
that is the grooming going on today... by ads, media, music,
movies, TV.... turning unruly people into obedient citizens..

so, given all of this, is this "feminization of men'' even a thing?

or is it the existential threat conservatives claim it to be, without
any evidence I might add..

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:50 pm as I am going across a couple of different areas, the political,
the social, gender, I am going to place this here as a compromise...

I have heard of attacks from conservatives about how society is becoming
corrupt because of the "feminization of men"... part of what is "wrong" with
society today, is the so called "femininization of men"...

but what does this actually mean? I have no idea... part of the current
attack of conservatives is the "grooming" of children... Now, to be clear,
the state itself grooms children.. we take citizenship classes and that is
attempting to "groom" children to be better citizens.. the state/society
grooms children all the time by its laws, media, educational process,
and advertising... and ads doesn't just sell something, it is a primer on
the role of men and women within the society/state...ads are another
example of the society/state grooming children...

Now this attack of the "feminization of men" is based on some fixed idea
of what men are and what men aren't... and then, it is never stated, but
assumed that this idea/fixing of roles, somehow impacts the society/state
negatively... but all of this is nothing more than assumptions.. what the
role of men within society has never been adequately worked out...
what is the benefit to men, acting in roles given to them by society,
how does that impact the men and their choices, and
their impact within the society/state?

As far as I can tell, it is all simple assumptions that dictate how
one feels about this allege "feminization of men" and its impact
on the state/society..

and the state takes actions based on these assumption..
by passing laws preventing gays and trans people from living their lives...
how does this "grooming" of people benefit either the people impacted or
the state/society?

For the largest grooming of people in the world today, it used to
be religion, but today, it is the state that grooms people by its
laws, rules, and education.... especially in its education.... education
is grooming.. making children into obedient little citizens..
turning them into good workers, producers and consumers...
that is the grooming going on today... by ads, media, music,
movies, TV.... turning unruly people into obedient citizens..

so, given all of this, is this "feminization of men'' even a thing?

or is it the existential threat conservatives claim it to be, without
any evidence I might add..

Kropotkin

So what?? Are they trying to say that society would be better if we were all a little more like Ghengis Khan, or Ted Bundy?
How do they work through that idea?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:50 pm as I am going across a couple of different areas, the political,
the social, gender, I am going to place this here as a compromise...

I have heard of attacks from conservatives about how society is becoming
corrupt because of the "feminization of men"... part of what is "wrong" with
society today, is the so called "femininization of men"...

but what does this actually mean? I have no idea... part of the current
attack of conservatives is the "grooming" of children... Now, to be clear,
the state itself grooms children.. we take citizenship classes and that is
attempting to "groom" children to be better citizens.. the state/society
grooms children all the time by its laws, media, educational process,
and advertising... and ads doesn't just sell something, it is a primer on
the role of men and women within the society/state...ads are another
example of the society/state grooming children...

Now this attack of the "feminization of men" is based on some fixed idea
of what men are and what men aren't... and then, it is never stated, but
assumed that this idea/fixing of roles, somehow impacts the society/state
negatively... but all of this is nothing more than assumptions.. what the
role of men within society has never been adequately worked out...
what is the benefit to men, acting in roles given to them by society,
how does that impact the men and their choices, and
their impact within the society/state?

As far as I can tell, it is all simple assumptions that dictate how
one feels about this allege "feminization of men" and its impact
on the state/society..

and the state takes actions based on these assumption..
by passing laws preventing gays and trans people from living their lives...
how does this "grooming" of people benefit either the people impacted or
the state/society?

For the largest grooming of people in the world today, it used to
be religion, but today, it is the state that grooms people by its
laws, rules, and education.... especially in its education.... education
is grooming.. making children into obedient little citizens..
turning them into good workers, producers and consumers...
that is the grooming going on today... by ads, media, music,
movies, TV.... turning unruly people into obedient citizens..

so, given all of this, is this "feminization of men'' even a thing?

or is it the existential threat conservatives claim it to be, without
any evidence I might add..

Kropotkin

I feel like worries about the "feminization of men" fall under the category of "past worship" where people look back to the "good ol' days" that never really existed, mixed with misplaced notions of gender stereotyping that can often be toxic.

People that make these kinds of arguments will usually post pictures of things like homosexual or "metrosexual" men compared to a picture of WW2 soldiers or something with the boring caption, "see? You wouldn't find men like this back then!" or something similar.

It makes my eyes roll pretty hard.

...not to be confused with the masculinization of women as a recently allowable intrusion upon the sensibilities of men. There still seems to be an Original Sin complex of sorts in allowing matriarchy to catch up to patriarchy.

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:40 am I feel like worries about the "feminization of men" fall under the category of "past worship" where people look back to the "good ol' days" that never really existed, mixed with misplaced notions of gender stereotyping that can often be toxic.

People that make these kinds of arguments will usually post pictures of things like homosexual or "metrosexual" men compared to a picture of WW2 soldiers or something with the boring caption, "see? You wouldn't find men like this back then!" or something similar.

It makes my eyes roll pretty hard.

I generally react like you have. with the proviso that there is something in there. A seed of some truth. There seems a tendency to have as the ideal partial people. The traditional male, to generalize wildly, could not show weakness, fear, tears, confusion. Or better put was discouraged socially, sometimes extremely for showing these things. Sometimes subtley which need not be better. Teenager suck up the subtle cues and mess themselves up.

There were counter trends - things like hippies, hipsters, and new social cues that men should be sensitive, open with feelings, were fucked up if they didn't show feelings, all of them, perhaps leaving out anger (some would say).

Of course adult males show a wide range of characteristics and we have what would have been called traditional males and anything on the spectrum towards way too sensitive men who let people walk all over them and dare not emit anger.

I do think there has been pressure, especially in left circles, some types of urban alternative circles, organisations and areas with a strong feminist pull to shift the ideal over to a different kind of partial man. Where a different set of feelings are taboo.

(women of course have parallel crosses to bear, and generally worse ones)

This could be looked at a natural balancing, some Hegelian swinging back and forth, and it will all work out in some future. Oh, a little to far that way.
Also,I do see this as a general societal at best mixed set of feelings about emotions. Everybody is told to suppress at least certain emotions and even the positive ones, if expressed 'too much' can get you in trouble.

Men and women who are not partial, who value both their so-called positive and negative emotions, who can be both aggressive (if only in sports or extreme situations) who do not value guilt and shame as virtues, will get rejected by likely all sides at least in certain situations. A man who will cry in a variety of situations but who also can be blunt and forthright with anger in other situations, without initiating violence, is likely to be rejected by the left and right, for example. The parallel woman will also be rejected by the right certainly, and while seen perhaps as a role model by the left sometimes, is likely to get in trouble if she expressed confusion about certain left ideas, or fear in some situations where it seems like traditional feminine weakness, if she feels longing for a mate (less likely if that mate would also be female) and so on. Nobody quite accepts someone with a flowing limbic system.

I think that behind these confused criticisms of contemporary man, there is the perception that an epochal change is about to take place.

Unless technological development is halted, the role of the male in the human species is bound to soon become superfluous.

For the maintenance and protection of the offspring, the human male has always been fundamental.
But now his contribution in many situations is no longer indispensable.

And even in the reproduction of the species the woman is still necessary, while the men can be easily reduced to a few specimens to allow assisted fertilization.

The end of male hegemony is near and this worries those who believe they are worth more as a male.

bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:05 pm I think that behind these confused criticisms of contemporary man, there is the perception that an epochal change is about to take place.

Unless technological development is halted, the role of the male in the human species is bound to soon become superfluous.

For the maintenance and protection of the offspring, the human male has always been fundamental.
But now his contribution in many situations is no longer indispensable.

And even in the reproduction of the species the woman is still necessary, while the men can be easily reduced to a few specimens to allow assisted fertilization.

The end of male hegemony is near and this worries those who believe they are worth more as a male.

You don't half talk some bollocks.
Grow some and stop complaining.

bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:05 pm
Unless technological development is halted, the role of the male in the human species is bound to soon become superfluous.

Although they say T-levels are decreasing with each new generation, that's likely because of nurture. No need for T when you sit on your ass all day in front of a computer.

However for women, it really don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that schwing.

In other words, look to what’s biologically intrinsic. Men have the makeup to work like dogs for the women, and women like to reward with the many varieties of comforting attention that appeal to a real man, such as food and a moment of pleasure, perhaps teaching the children something they didn't know like a yoyo, followed by a brief peace that lasts for awhile if he’s lucky.

Women need the emotional comfort of a man, and that ain’t superfluous. It’s in her genes. Every once in awhile a woman needs to surrender her emotions and her body to be complete. This is why women find God and religion after menopause. When the fire of youth cools a bit, the body surrender caused by the need for species propagation isn’t so hot anymore, and the need for emotional surrender can be quenched by bhakti devotion to God.

God keeps those darkest secrets that a mortal, aggressive woman might use to manipulate a pliant partner. However, the strength in real men lies in an easy truce with their own aggressiveness and physical superiority, that clears the vision for appropriate behavior towards women. No need to prove his physical dominance over the woman, just over other men, which is why showing off physically to women with mighty feats of prowess has replaced beating up other men to win her fair hand, at least in your more civilized neighborhoods. It's why little boys show off for little girls.

Of course, like the paleolithic urge for showing off gets directed into more civilized channels such as impressing with wealth, nature gets screwed up by nurture. Children suffer the abuses of their parents and pass them on, which leads to mean and nasty things done to people, by people.

The real man who breaks that pattern of karma is the real man. For example: Charlie Bronson was sold as a child to work in the coal mines, and he escaped as an older teen. He became wealthy and had a family that he took everywhere he worked, all over the world. An actor and not an Einstein, but a real man, which is why he had to stay sharp until the end *.


* Source: an Esquire profile written by Harry Crews and based on interviews, probably in the '70's, which I think is when my subscription ran out.

Only a complete moron ever uses the term 'real man'. A man is an adult male human. End of story.

Well, saying "non-feminized man" is too many marbles in the mouth.

Saying adult male human makes you sound like we're lab specimens.

HeMan is a good substitute you might like. It works. Feel free to replace Real Man, with HeMan.

she's not wrong tho. the phrase 'real man' as opposed to 'male adult human' designates conventional actions, behaviors and roles as sex and gender qualifiers. they are not. sex and gender are physical qualities, not kinds of performances... unless by that we mean sexually reproductive performance. what a male adult human does, his 'role', is irrelevant. he's still a dude.

ultimately the phrase 'real man' is a romantic meme.

'He-man' isn't the same thing, but that's probably too much for your tiny brain to grasp.

You often hear men say 'a REAL man would never rape', 'a REAL man would never hit a woman' etc. etc. Umm, yes they would, and often do. The implication is that the word 'man' means something that is noble and decent when all it means is an adult male human. Nothing more. Nothing less.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:15 am 'He-man' isn't the same thing, but that's probably too much for your tiny brain to grasp.

- Of course a real man is a HeMan.
- A real man is not a SheMan.

- You're out of the loop on your definition of a real man, Missy.
- Probably a bit slow with your pronouns, too.
- Just google the words, "real man."
- The 'omputer will tell you what a real man is all about.

- Language is obviously much more nuanced and dimensional than the settled-science-of-insistence can grasp.

- Premise: The concept of "settled science," must be a feminine concept, like when feminine-foot-stamping replaces objective curiosity.

If another thread turns into a sex vs gender debate I might start suspecting people are more obsessed about it than gender dysphoric people are

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:24 pm If another thread turns into a sex vs gender debate I might start suspecting people are more obsessed about it than gender dysphoric people are

"obsessed"

Actually, the focus of science in relation to philosophy, in the limited-existence realm of words, is most relevant when properly placed in the perpetual doing of science. In the realm of words, scientific doing (following the form of science) is and can only be, e-prime writing. Such doing replaces habitually assumed equivalences with what's actually happening. For instance, should the urge to discount as irrelevant become the last grasp for a response, then that's a red-light signal to stop and pause for a moment to allow the widening of the view, in order to see the relevance without being spoon fed.

Gimme something good.